News Dr Bridie O'Donnell elected to the board

[jackcass]

Yes but they’ve announced that she has been APPOINTED to the Board and then....later....said that she has no voting rights. But the APPOINTMENT is surely invalid?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Why? Has it been any different for any other appointment to a casual vacancy? Wouldn't they all have had to wait till the AGM to get approved by the members? Did those other appointments have voting rights prior to the AGM?

If they defer the AGM till February then she'd even meet the 2 year requirement.

I just think people are trying to manufacture issues where really there isn't any.

 

[domus]

i dont doubt their self control. In fact, i'm impressed that they havent thrown themselves at you. You have that take-charge demeanour that women adore...

Thanks for your kind words.

 

[domus]

I don't need to be a woman or trans person to know that a man who transitions to being a woman has a huge physical advantage over women in sport.
It's simply not fair.

 

[NMBB]

Yes but they’ve announced that she has been APPOINTED to the Board and then....later....said that she has no voting rights. But the APPOINTMENT is surely invalid?

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Like our game plan- might work then again it might not.

 

[Kalidakope]

You are so sexist at times it upsets me. Why would you make such abhorrent observations about female doctors?
I have found all of mine to be professional and above reproach despite the obvious temptations they were bound to face when I entered their surgery.
Incredible self control.

Some of them did projectile vomit despite that control, they're only human

 

[Queenie Hearts]

So if she is ineligible, why are they still allowing her to work in the capacity as a board member until the next meeting?

Geez, this club isn’t good on finer details. It really isn’t surprising that they fcuked up the salary cap when you look at this nonsense.

One can only wonder what they will butcher next.

It is completely inappropriate for her to sit in confidential Board discussions when she is not an appointed director nor yet eligible to be one . Korda said she is there in an ex officio capacity until her appointment is ratified at the AGM. This is poor governance and arrogant. I cannot fathom that this is a suggestion of someone sitting on corporate boards.

Once eligible, she will need to be elected by a vote of voting members at a general meeting and there is no indication that she will be successful. You can only “ratify” a decision if you believe on reasonable grounds that those who need to agree will do so and it is just a formality. This is clearly not the case.

We should also look at the other appointees. Were they eligible when they filled casual vacancies and then stayed on unopposed at the AGM? Why were there never any other people who stood for over 20 years? Eddie seems proud of this record. I find it shocking governance.

During that period they took the club away from its core business, adding netball. Eddie starting calling it ‘Australia’s leading sporting club’, and invested in a reception venue. When was this fundamental shift in the focus of the business ever put to the members? If you ask me as a member, I would say the club’s vision should be to win AFL premierships. I would support the move to AFLW. I think netball is too far and focus is lost through diversification to this extent.

I am a female and I believe in gender equality and balance on Boards. My objection is not in any way connected to that. She is not the only woman in the country with strong skill sets and experience that could assist the club.

I have simply lost confidence in the competence and integrity of the Board to set the strategy and govern the organisation. They seem to think that financial performance is the only metric.

I have many years experience with Boards (as a director, company secretary and General Counsel) and it is either incompetent or a Board culture which disregards compliance and governance to have a anyone who may never be appointed in the boardroom, even if they do not vote. Equally, an experienced director would be telling them that it is inappropriate for them to attend unless and until formally appointed.

The rules in the Constitution (I believe Collingwood has Articles of Association, the old fashioned equivalent) are not optional. They must be followed and any competent chairman would make sure they understood them and did so, especially when facing a potential EGM led by a lawyer whose first step will be to know the provisions.

If they do not like the provisions of the Constitution there is a formal mechanism to vary it (with a vote of members). They cannot pick and choose what applies.

They would also understand that the Board acts as one so they are collectively responsible for all of the governance failures over their tenure. Those members who were on Eddie’s board (which is all bar 1) cannot simply suggest that Eddie was the sole decision-maker and distance themselves. The President is their representative and speaks for the Board. They appoint and remove the President, not the members. Their inability to make the simple decision to nominate a single president when Eddie stepped down has created this instability and does not exactly inspire confidence.

As someone who has worked on Boards for over 15 years and supported the Collingwood Football Club for over 45 years, going to school in Clifton Hill and going to Victoria Park and a Legends member who goes to as many games as possible, to serve on the Collingwood Board and be of service to the club would be an honour of a lifetime.

This appointment comes across as cynical, in my view. There are lots of women out there who would be more than qualified, bring amazing skills to the table and also have a love for the club and an understanding of what it means to be a supporter of it.

They need only to open their minds and let the process be what it was supposed to be- something that members get to decide.





On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[NMBB]

It is completely inappropriate for her to sit in confidential Board discussions when she is not an appointed director nor yet eligible to be one . Korda said she is there in an ex officio capacity until her appointment is ratified at the AGM. This is poor governance and arrogant. I cannot fathom that this is a suggestion of someone sitting on corporate boards.

Once eligible, she will need to be elected by a vote of voting members at a general meeting and there is no indication that she will be successful. You can only “ratify” a decision if you believe on reasonable grounds that those who need to agree will do so and it is just a formality. This is clearly not the case.

We should also look at the other appointees. Were they eligible when they filled casual vacancies and then stayed on unopposed at the AGM? Why were there never any other people who stood for over 20 years? Eddie seems proud of this record. I find it shocking governance.

During that period they took the club away from its core business, adding netball. Eddie starting calling it ‘Australia’s leading sporting club’, and invested in a reception venue. When was this fundamental shift in the focus of the business ever put to the members? If you ask me as a member, I would say the club’s vision should be to win AFL premierships. I would support the move to AFLW. I think netball is too far and focus is lost through diversification to this extent.

I am a female and I believe in gender equality and balance on Boards. My objection is not in any way connected to that. She is not the only woman in the country with strong skill sets and experience that could assist the club.

I have simply lost confidence in the competence and integrity of the Board to set the strategy and govern the organisation. They seem to think that financial performance is the only metric.

I have many years experience with Boards (as a director, company secretary and General Counsel) and it is either incompetent or a Board culture which disregards compliance and governance to have a anyone who may never be appointed in the boardroom, even if they do not vote. Equally, an experienced director would be telling them that it is inappropriate for them to attend unless and until formally appointed.

The rules in the Constitution (I believe Collingwood has Articles of Association, the old fashioned equivalent) are not optional. They must be followed and any competent chairman would make sure they understood them and did so, especially when facing a potential EGM led by a lawyer whose first step will be to know the provisions.

If they do not like the provisions of the Constitution there is a formal mechanism to vary it (with a vote of members). They cannot pick and choose what applies.

They would also understand that the Board acts as one so they are collectively responsible for all of the governance failures over their tenure. Those members who were on Eddie’s board (which is all bar 1) cannot simply suggest that Eddie was the sole decision-maker and distance themselves. The President is their representative and speaks for the Board. They appoint and remove the President, not the members. Their inability to make the simple decision to nominate a single president when Eddie stepped down has created this instability and does not exactly inspire confidence.

As someone who has worked on Boards for over 15 years and supported the Collingwood Football Club for over 45 years, going to school in Clifton Hill and going to Victoria Park and a Legends member who goes to as many games as possible, to serve on the Collingwood Board and be of service to the club would be an honour of a lifetime.

This appointment comes across as cynical, in my view. There are lots of women out there who would be more than qualified, bring amazing skills to the table and also have a love for the club and an understanding of what it means to be a supporter of it.

They need only to open their minds and let the process be what it was supposed to be- something that members get to decide.





On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Tad long but nice reference to core business tucked away in there

 

[sideswipe]

It is completely inappropriate for her to sit in confidential Board discussions when she is not an appointed director nor yet eligible to be one . Korda said she is there in an ex officio capacity until her appointment is ratified at the AGM. This is poor governance and arrogant. I cannot fathom that this is a suggestion of someone sitting on corporate boards.

Once eligible, she will need to be elected by a vote of voting members at a general meeting and there is no indication that she will be successful. You can only “ratify” a decision if you believe on reasonable grounds that those who need to agree will do so and it is just a formality. This is clearly not the case.

We should also look at the other appointees. Were they eligible when they filled casual vacancies and then stayed on unopposed at the AGM? Why were there never any other people who stood for over 20 years? Eddie seems proud of this record. I find it shocking governance.

During that period they took the club away from its core business, adding netball. Eddie starting calling it ‘Australia’s leading sporting club’, and invested in a reception venue. When was this fundamental shift in the focus of the business ever put to the members? If you ask me as a member, I would say the club’s vision should be to win AFL premierships. I would support the move to AFLW. I think netball is too far and focus is lost through diversification to this extent.

I am a female and I believe in gender equality and balance on Boards. My objection is not in any way connected to that. She is not the only woman in the country with strong skill sets and experience that could assist the club.

I have simply lost confidence in the competence and integrity of the Board to set the strategy and govern the organisation. They seem to think that financial performance is the only metric.

I have many years experience with Boards (as a director, company secretary and General Counsel) and it is either incompetent or a Board culture which disregards compliance and governance to have a anyone who may never be appointed in the boardroom, even if they do not vote. Equally, an experienced director would be telling them that it is inappropriate for them to attend unless and until formally appointed.

The rules in the Constitution (I believe Collingwood has Articles of Association, the old fashioned equivalent) are not optional. They must be followed and any competent chairman would make sure they understood them and did so, especially when facing a potential EGM led by a lawyer whose first step will be to know the provisions.

If they do not like the provisions of the Constitution there is a formal mechanism to vary it (with a vote of members). They cannot pick and choose what applies.

They would also understand that the Board acts as one so they are collectively responsible for all of the governance failures over their tenure. Those members who were on Eddie’s board (which is all bar 1) cannot simply suggest that Eddie was the sole decision-maker and distance themselves. The President is their representative and speaks for the Board. They appoint and remove the President, not the members. Their inability to make the simple decision to nominate a single president when Eddie stepped down has created this instability and does not exactly inspire confidence.

As someone who has worked on Boards for over 15 years and supported the Collingwood Football Club for over 45 years, going to school in Clifton Hill and going to Victoria Park and a Legends member who goes to as many games as possible, to serve on the Collingwood Board and be of service to the club would be an honour of a lifetime.

This appointment comes across as cynical, in my view. There are lots of women out there who would be more than qualified, bring amazing skills to the table and also have a love for the club and an understanding of what it means to be a supporter of it.

They need only to open their minds and let the process be what it was supposed to be- something that members get to decide.





On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Well, to put it bluntly, why not get off your bum and stand as a candidate? The lack of alternate candidates is why we haven’t had elections?



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jmac70]

I don't need to be a woman or trans person to know that a man who transitions to being a woman has a huge physical advantage over women in sport.
It's simply not fair.

 

[daicandbake]

It is completely inappropriate for her to sit in confidential Board discussions when she is not an appointed director nor yet eligible to be one . Korda said she is there in an ex officio capacity until her appointment is ratified at the AGM. This is poor governance and arrogant. I cannot fathom that this is a suggestion of someone sitting on corporate boards.

Once eligible, she will need to be elected by a vote of voting members at a general meeting and there is no indication that she will be successful. You can only “ratify” a decision if you believe on reasonable grounds that those who need to agree will do so and it is just a formality. This is clearly not the case.

We should also look at the other appointees. Were they eligible when they filled casual vacancies and then stayed on unopposed at the AGM? Why were there never any other people who stood for over 20 years? Eddie seems proud of this record. I find it shocking governance.

During that period they took the club away from its core business, adding netball. Eddie starting calling it ‘Australia’s leading sporting club’, and invested in a reception venue. When was this fundamental shift in the focus of the business ever put to the members? If you ask me as a member, I would say the club’s vision should be to win AFL premierships. I would support the move to AFLW. I think netball is too far and focus is lost through diversification to this extent.

I am a female and I believe in gender equality and balance on Boards. My objection is not in any way connected to that. She is not the only woman in the country with strong skill sets and experience that could assist the club.

I have simply lost confidence in the competence and integrity of the Board to set the strategy and govern the organisation. They seem to think that financial performance is the only metric.

I have many years experience with Boards (as a director, company secretary and General Counsel) and it is either incompetent or a Board culture which disregards compliance and governance to have a anyone who may never be appointed in the boardroom, even if they do not vote. Equally, an experienced director would be telling them that it is inappropriate for them to attend unless and until formally appointed.

The rules in the Constitution (I believe Collingwood has Articles of Association, the old fashioned equivalent) are not optional. They must be followed and any competent chairman would make sure they understood them and did so, especially when facing a potential EGM led by a lawyer whose first step will be to know the provisions.

If they do not like the provisions of the Constitution there is a formal mechanism to vary it (with a vote of members). They cannot pick and choose what applies.

They would also understand that the Board acts as one so they are collectively responsible for all of the governance failures over their tenure. Those members who were on Eddie’s board (which is all bar 1) cannot simply suggest that Eddie was the sole decision-maker and distance themselves. The President is their representative and speaks for the Board. They appoint and remove the President, not the members. Their inability to make the simple decision to nominate a single president when Eddie stepped down has created this instability and does not exactly inspire confidence.

As someone who has worked on Boards for over 15 years and supported the Collingwood Football Club for over 45 years, going to school in Clifton Hill and going to Victoria Park and a Legends member who goes to as many games as possible, to serve on the Collingwood Board and be of service to the club would be an honour of a lifetime.

This appointment comes across as cynical, in my view. There are lots of women out there who would be more than qualified, bring amazing skills to the table and also have a love for the club and an understanding of what it means to be a supporter of it.

They need only to open their minds and let the process be what it was supposed to be- something that members get to decide.

Well said. Ambition is not a qualification.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[LuckyLee]

Why? Has it been any different for any other appointment to a casual vacancy? Wouldn't they all have had to wait till the AGM to get approved by the members? Did those other appointments have voting rights prior to the AGM?

If they defer the AGM till February then she'd even meet the 2 year requirement.

I just think people are trying to manufacture issues where really there isn't any.

Are you suggesting that casual vacancies are not subject to the same two-year membership requirement? I doubt that’s the case.

To be clear, I am very happy with the candidate selected. Unfortunately, it seems she is ineligible, under our Club’s Constitution. Consequently she shouldn’t (yet) be on the Board, with or without voting rights.

It’s just another example of the off-field disarray that our club is in.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[jackcass]

Are you suggesting that casual vacancies are not subject to the same two-year membership requirement? I doubt that’s the case.

To be clear, I am very happy with the candidate selected. Unfortunately, it seems she is ineligible, under our Club’s Constitution. Consequently she shouldn’t (yet) be on the Board, with or without voting rights.

It’s just another example of the off-field disarray that our club is in.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Casual vacancies are linked to the tenure of the person they’re replacing as far as I know.

Their status on the board doesn’t normally get ratified till confirmed by the members at the AGM unless I’m mistaken. If she became a member in Feb 2020 then she’d be bloody close to even meeting that 24 month requirement, but if she’s been identified as the best candidate then WTF does it matter if she’s a few months short. It’s been waived in the past. She can still contribute to the board in the interim. How often does the board have a hung vote where her’s would even be required?

People are looking for justification for their faux rage where there isn’t any. Happy for you to carry on with that, I’ll leave it there.

 

[Billys Back]

There's only a finite amount of money coming into the club. If there were decisions to, lets say, pay the same amount to the women as the men, then the amount paid to both would need to be less than the current men's salary cap. Most clubs would be lucky to make $1m or 2 profit. If it was decide to make the women's salary cap $5m, then something else would need to reduce...... of course, if the women can generate a large amount of income, then the pie gets bigger. Of course, currently there is money coming from AFL central to subsidise the costs associated with running AFLW - airfares and probably even the current AFLw salary cap. I'm not sure how much AFL central is getting for the telecast rights to AFLW. I know AFLW was charging $10 at the gate last year, so a crowd of 2000 will deliver $20,000, which mightnt be enough to pay for venue costs. Once again, crowds may increase. Then there is the income from AFLW memberships and maybe some merchandising. That would be hard to quantify in areas such as guernsey sales to young girls, for example. It's all a balance but as I said at the start, there is a finite amount of money to go around

I think you’ll find that if the AFL increases the salary cap for the AFLW, they will largely contribute to it as they do for the AFL.

In terms of netball, I don’t actually know how that works.

It will be a long time before we see the cap for AFLW even get to $5m. The AFL will make certain that it must be commercial for the clubs. The fact that those clubs who don’t have AFLW teams are banging down the door to get in (and in Hawthorn’s case threatening legal action) suggests it’s heading in the right direction and clubs want to be a part of it (even clubs like Hawthorn who probably took a ‘wait and see’ approach).

Also you can’t dismiss sponsorship. I’m sure having both a male and female team will be more appealing to many sponsors and generate greater revenue for the club. Whether it be charging extra to existing sponsors or AFLW specific sponsors, there is a commercial benefit.

That’s one of the areas our new board member may be able to add some value. The benefits will flow on to the club as a whole.

 

[Black_White]

Well, to put it bluntly, why not get off your bum and stand as a candidate? The lack of alternate candidates is why we haven’t had elections?



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

The lack of candidates is directly attributable to Eddie.
He was very proactive when hearing about any challengers to his chosen few.
They were convinced that challenging was an embarrassment to CFC.

 

[Markfs]

I think you’ll find that if the AFL increases the salary cap for the AFLW, they will largely contribute to it as they do for the AFL.

In terms of netball, I don’t actually know how that works.

It will be a long time before we see the cap for AFLW even get to $5m. The AFL will make certain that it must be commercial for the clubs. The fact that those clubs who don’t have AFLW teams are banging down the door to get in (and in Hawthorn’s case threatening legal action) suggests it’s heading in the right direction and clubs want to be a part of it (even clubs like Hawthorn who probably took a ‘wait and see’ approach).

Also you can’t dismiss sponsorship. I’m sure having both a male and female team will be more appealing to many sponsors and generate greater revenue for the club. Whether it be charging extra to existing sponsors or AFLW specific sponsors, there is a commercial benefit.

That’s one of the areas our new board member may be able to add some value. The benefits will flow on to the club as a whole.

I agree with all of that. I think the other key point is that North's capacity to pay, for example, is going to limit the salary cap for women as much as anything else.

Another key point is the Tayla Harris situation where carlton is being asked to pay $150K all up.... much of it from things outside the actual player payment. If we get hooked into those kind of decisions, I wouldnt like to see the men's affected. Now we could say that that isnt going to happen.....but we know from the past 12 months that anything can happen at the club.

It doesnt bother me if Bridie is all consumed by women's sport and even push for more money etc, as long as she realises that a significant amount of fans have financial ties to the club primarily because of the men. I watched the women's games and loved doing it... but if we end up a well-rounded club that doesnt win premierships, I dont think future generations will be talking about the pies as the biggest club - albeit wrongfully.

 

[LuckyLee]

Casual vacancies are linked to the tenure of the person they’re replacing as far as I know.

Their status on the board doesn’t normally get ratified till confirmed by the members at the AGM unless I’m mistaken. If she became a member in Feb 2020 then she’d be bloody close to even meeting that 24 month requirement, but if she’s been identified as the best candidate then WTF does it matter if she’s a few months short. It’s been waived in the past. She can still contribute to the board in the interim. How often does the board have a hung vote where her’s would even be required?

People are looking for justification for their faux rage where there isn’t any. Happy for you to carry on with that, I’ll leave it there.

The Club Constitution exists for a reason. It’s the governance rule book. The Board doesn’t get to pick and choose which bits it follows and which bits it doesn’t.

Dismissing such criticisms of the Club’s processes as “faux rage” is much like Donald Thump’s “fake news” defence every time he was confronted with an uncomfortable fact.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[jackcass]

The Club Constitution exists for a reason. It’s the governance rule book. The Board doesn’t get to pick and choose which bits it follows and which bits it doesn’t.

Dismissing such criticisms of the Club’s processes as “faux rage” is much like Donald Thump’s “fake news” defence every time he was confronted with an uncomfortable fact.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Constitution was modified to enable such circumstance unless I’m mistaken.

Faux rage.

There are more than enough actual examples to rage about without inventing others.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Well, to put it bluntly, why not get off your bum and stand as a candidate? The lack of alternate candidates is why we haven’t had elections?

Maybe she has?

Besides, from what we can glean from this process, it looks more like a ‘tap on the shoulder’ and less like a ‘please submit CV’

 

[sideswipe]

Maybe she has?

Besides, from what we can glean from this process, it looks more like a ‘tap on the shoulder’ and less like a ‘please submit CV’

Well, with the greatest of respect to QH and removing her from the question the fact is that there is a process for a candidate to be put forward to contest a board spot. Not saying Ed or others may have discouraged prospective alternates but that discouragement does not preclude a candidate from putting themselves in the mix.

The fact is that no one has actually properly presented themselves as an alternate candidate. If they had, it would have forced an election.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[daicandbake]

1. No idea
2. Yes I think it's appropriate. All companies look for a balance in such things, so that companies can more fairly represent social demographics. Is it fair to individual male applicants - no, but there is no such thing as fair selection criteria as they contain biases that are unfair to some applicants.
3. No I don't think it's strange and I don't think being a Collingwood supporter is any benefit in terms of the role of a board of directors.

A few questions for you:
1. What is the role of a board member?
2. How do you think being a Collingwood supporter will help with this role?
3. What makes you think that Bridie wasn't the best person for the job, regardless of any gender bias in the selection criteria.

By all means argue against preferential hiring practices, as they're always going to be controversial, but stop railing against an appointed individual when you know nothing about her or other applications. She's well credentialed and there's no reason for us to think that she is going to contribute to us going down an inappropriate path.

As someone who has worked with Bridie in SRV for several years I can confirm she doesn’t give a shit about AFL or Collingwood. She has ambitions for power and the club is of no importance in this. She has a seat on an AFL club board and she will seek to use it to advance herself.

 

[legendstatus]

As someone who has worked with Bridie in SRV for several years I can confirm she doesn’t give a sh*t about AFL or Collingwood. She has ambitions for power and the club is of no importance in this. She has a seat on an AFL club board and she will seek to use it to advance herself.

Not a good endorsement.

Wouldn’t worry too much, the whole board will be booted out once Browne gets elected


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Jekyll and Hyde]

She looks ok. Bird 39........!

only comment if you know what I’m talking about.

 

[sr36]

As someone who has worked with Bridie in SRV for several years I can confirm she doesn’t give a sh*t about AFL or Collingwood. She has ambitions for power and the club is of no importance in this. She has a seat on an AFL club board and she will seek to use it to advance herself.

AFL clubs are rare organisations where some enter it whilst already being passionate about the company. I don't think that makes them more likely to do a good job though. Talent, work ethic and pride of performance tend to be the factors that matter for that.

Most enter a job purely on self interest, be it money or a promotion. The question for me isn't her motivation for doing the job, the question is whether she will do a good job.

 

[sideswipe]

AFL clubs are rare organisations where some enter it whilst already being passionate about the company. I don't think that makes them more likely to do a good job though. Talent, work ethic and pride of performance tend to be the factors that matter for that.

Most enter a job purely on self interest, be it money or a promotion. The question for me isn't her motivation for doing the job, the question is whether she will do a good job.

It’s less of a question around the motivation of a 5 post BF account.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[epistemology]

It is completely inappropriate for her to sit in confidential Board discussions when she is not an appointed director nor yet eligible to be one . Korda said she is there in an ex officio capacity until her appointment is ratified at the AGM. This is poor governance and arrogant. I cannot fathom that this is a suggestion of someone sitting on corporate boards.

Once eligible, she will need to be elected by a vote of voting members at a general meeting and there is no indication that she will be successful. You can only “ratify” a decision if you believe on reasonable grounds that those who need to agree will do so and it is just a formality. This is clearly not the case.

We should also look at the other appointees. Were they eligible when they filled casual vacancies and then stayed on unopposed at the AGM? Why were there never any other people who stood for over 20 years? Eddie seems proud of this record. I find it shocking governance.

During that period they took the club away from its core business, adding netball. Eddie starting calling it ‘Australia’s leading sporting club’, and invested in a reception venue. When was this fundamental shift in the focus of the business ever put to the members? If you ask me as a member, I would say the club’s vision should be to win AFL premierships. I would support the move to AFLW. I think netball is too far and focus is lost through diversification to this extent.

I am a female and I believe in gender equality and balance on Boards. My objection is not in any way connected to that. She is not the only woman in the country with strong skill sets and experience that could assist the club.

I have simply lost confidence in the competence and integrity of the Board to set the strategy and govern the organisation. They seem to think that financial performance is the only metric.

I have many years experience with Boards (as a director, company secretary and General Counsel) and it is either incompetent or a Board culture which disregards compliance and governance to have a anyone who may never be appointed in the boardroom, even if they do not vote. Equally, an experienced director would be telling them that it is inappropriate for them to attend unless and until formally appointed.

The rules in the Constitution (I believe Collingwood has Articles of Association, the old fashioned equivalent) are not optional. They must be followed and any competent chairman would make sure they understood them and did so, especially when facing a potential EGM led by a lawyer whose first step will be to know the provisions.

If they do not like the provisions of the Constitution there is a formal mechanism to vary it (with a vote of members). They cannot pick and choose what applies.

They would also understand that the Board acts as one so they are collectively responsible for all of the governance failures over their tenure. Those members who were on Eddie’s board (which is all bar 1) cannot simply suggest that Eddie was the sole decision-maker and distance themselves. The President is their representative and speaks for the Board. They appoint and remove the President, not the members. Their inability to make the simple decision to nominate a single president when Eddie stepped down has created this instability and does not exactly inspire confidence.

As someone who has worked on Boards for over 15 years and supported the Collingwood Football Club for over 45 years, going to school in Clifton Hill and going to Victoria Park and a Legends member who goes to as many games as possible, to serve on the Collingwood Board and be of service to the club would be an honour of a lifetime.

This appointment comes across as cynical, in my view. There are lots of women out there who would be more than qualified, bring amazing skills to the table and also have a love for the club and an understanding of what it means to be a supporter of it.

They need only to open their minds and let the process be what it was supposed to be- something that members get to decide.





On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I share your concerns.

I am worried that the club doesn't have proper corporate governance and risk management processes. That proper management review exists for reviewing and approving operational decisions. Eg a player recruitment policy in place, processes around ensuring salary cap compliance etc.

The policy gets written and approved, and they pull it off the shelf in the heat of the moment or when someone has a brainwave - basic checks; are we doing what we should be doing? does it fit with strategy? am I acting with delegated authority?

I can't tell if they do have these processes, or if it's a free for all with the cowboys running the show.

I can draw a governance line through past presidents and the corporate environments they've been exposed to.