Delisted Former CEO Xavier Campbell - Resigned - 24/8

[CBombers17]

Re reading the article, half the problem with those organising against the current regime is their need to include a whole heap of irrelevant shit / weak points in their correspondence (all the "proud club" crap) - diluting all their good arguments IMO.

 

[faible]

It’s quite unusual for a CEO to be hands-off with core business.

Who is the GM football accountable to in your vision? Who directs them?

Typically it would be Board < CEO < GM Football < Coaches < etc etc

A good CEO knows when to let their subordinates do their jobs and when to start asking questions and directing traffic more.

The snippet Lore posted says it well; That the GM Football is a critical appointment because they are the one who run the day-to-day business of football operations.

Point 5 is a good one, if it's been decided that XC's strength is commercial operations and it's decided his time is better focused on that aspect, then the GM Football can report directly to the board, so long as it's clear who's reporting where and to whom.

There's no one way to structure an organisation, but what's pretty consistent is that you put good people in place and let them do their jobs.

If a CEO is micromanaging the organisation, they're probably not a good CEO and/or they don't have good people in place.

 

[Chucks]

Yes on the review. External review- Nothing to hide and we are looking for excellence and improvement. Internal review....just give us time we have got this - piss off.

Letter - There was an article in the Australian apparently publishing a letter from a member to the club outlining several concerns - including the lack of transparency and demanding a review into some sort of HR issue everyone seems to know about, as well as a review into the boards decision to extend Campbell's contract - below extract ***

It says: “We have concerns, if in fact this is true and would like you to validate:

“Was there a review conducted by the board in relation to allegations … committed by Xavier Campbell? If the answer is yes then great, have the current board members received a copy of the report?

“Who made the decision to reappoint Xavier Campbell for an additional 2 year term? The board vote or the president independently.”

The author of the letter has asked for an external review into the reappointment and conduct of the CEO.*****

Another section of the article deals with the ignored pleas from 1500 members for the club to conduct an external review in 2020 - below****

It is not the first letter of concern to land on Brasher’s desk calling for an external review – in 2020, 1500 members called for an independent analysis of the club.

The architect of that letter, Bombers supporter Brett Crabtree said that he did not hear back from Brasher or the board after submitting the petition to him.

“We were asking for an external review if that review came back and said nothing to see here, the club is running well and due process being followed – well then it would be onwards and upwards,” Crabtree said.

Ahhh yep gotcha. Yeah, it seems all too indicative that we are so adamantly against an external review.

It kind of makes you think of scenarios where a club/board have stuck fat with their department and reaped the benefits, Eg Geelong with Bomber, Richmond with Hardwick/their board, as well as Collingwood with Buckley in 2017 (getting them to the Granny the next year, albeit losing) - IF the board and Campbell etc have been underperforming/incompetent and refuse an external review, its very easy for them to just list those sort of examples as a reason to back themselves in... almost too easy though isn't it.

Re the letter - my bad, I thought you were referring to a letter that had been sent to members haha. Does anyone know or have any inkling what this HR issue is pertaining to? Very curious, seeing as many possibly are already aware of it.

 

[CBombers17]

Typically it would be Board < CEO < GM Football < Coaches < etc etc

A good CEO knows when to let their subordinates do their jobs and when to start asking questions and directing traffic more.

The snippet Lore posted says it well; That the GM Football is a critical appointment because they are the one who run the day-to-day business of football operations.

Point 5 is a good one, if it's been decided that XC's strength is commercial operations and it's decided his time is better focused on that aspect, then the GM Football can report directly to the board, so long as it's clear who's reporting where and to whom.

There's no one way to structure an organisation, but what's pretty consistent is that you put good people in place and let them do their jobs.

If a CEO is micromanaging the organisation, they're probably not a good CEO and/or they don't have good people in place.

By any standard measure of a CEO the amount of board involvement at Essendon would strongly suggest he's not competent.

He should be receiving broad direction from the Board and then running the whole joint - especially the core business being football - and then reporting results to the board.

Generally things like major spends and key appointments would be discussed with the board but as for how to carve up reporting lines and responsibilites etc that's a competent CEO's job - which incidentally Campbell had for some time as CEO and hashed much of it up. That's normally when the board gets a new one or it's their arse.

 

[Howard Moon]

Lyon on Wednesday also spoke out to question the club’s decision.

“It happened at Carlton. Cain (Liddle) was very good at sponsorship, but at the end of the day, the football piece was sadly lacking,” Lyon told Channel 9’s Footy Classified.

“That’s his number one KPI, establishing a football culture and program as a CEO.

Bang on Ross as usual

 

[faible]

By any standard measure of a CEO the amount of board involvement at Essendon would strongly suggest he's not competent.

He should be receiving broad direction from the Board and then running the whole joint - especially the core business being football - and then reporting results to the board.

Generally things like major spends and key appointments would be discussed with the board but as for how to carve up reporting lines and responsibilites etc that's a competent CEO's job - which incidentally Campbell had for some time as CEO and hashed much of it up. That's normally when the board gets a new one or it's their arse.

I've not defended XC getting an extension.

Maybe he's very good at some areas, but needs assistance in others. I've no issue with the board using their experience to assist and educate the CEO in areas that person may not be as experienced in, so long as the CEO is delivering a good outcome in the areas they know well.

We don't really know what metric the board measure's XC's performance on. Fiscally we seem in a good space, memberships are pretty good for a club that's really not been much chop on-field for a long time, and sponsorships have held up well throughout the saga period despite the brand itself being tarnished.

How much of this was XC's doing and how much was simply owing to the expansion of the AFL and EFC already being a highly recognisable brand though?

On-field performance is not inherently representative of the CEO being good or bad, supporters would like to think it is but it's really not. The CEO doesn't draft, condition, and coach the players.

If the CEO knows what they're good and bad at, and can put the right people in place to provide support and strength at the position they need it, then they can be a good CEO. Is XC that person though?

 

[CBombers17]

Ahhh yep gotcha. Yeah, it seems all too indicative that we are so adamantly against an external review.

It kind of makes you think of scenarios where a club/board have stuck fat with their department and reaped the benefits, Eg Geelong with Bomber, Richmond with Hardwick/their board, as well as Collingwood with Buckley in 2017 (getting them to the Granny the next year, albeit losing) - IF the board and Campbell etc have been underperforming/incompetent and refuse an external review, its very easy for them to just list those sort of examples as a reason to back themselves in... almost too easy though isn't it.

Re the letter - my bad, I thought you were referring to a letter that had been sent to members haha. Does anyone know or have any inkling what this HR issue is pertaining to? Very curious, seeing as many possibly are already aware of it.

I agree with your points and have made the same ones myself. Very troubling to hear them point to those examples. Thought it was a real sign of cracks the minute I heard that.

No idea what the incident was. Given it wasn't far past the time they were whacking up melatonin or whatever it has high potential to be stupid as.

 

[CBombers17]

I've not defended XC getting an extension.

Maybe he's very good at some areas, but needs assistance in others. I've no issue with the board using their experience to assist and educate the CEO in areas that person may not be as experienced in, so long as the CEO is delivering a good outcome in the areas they know well.

We don't really know what metric the board measure's XC's performance on. Fiscally we seem in a good space, memberships are pretty good for a club that's really not been much chop on-field for a long time, and sponsorships have held up well throughout the saga period despite the brand itself being tarnished.

How much of this was XC's doing and how much was simply owing to the expansion of the AFL and EFC already being a highly recognisable brand though?

On-field performance is not inherently representative of the CEO being good or bad, supporters would like to think it is but it's really not. The CEO doesn't draft, condition, and coach the players.

If the CEO knows what they're good and bad at, and can put the right people in place to provide support and strength at the position they need it, then they can be a good CEO. Is XC that person though?

Here's the thing. If you can't do all the jobs as a CEO you shouldn't be a CEO - or you are a bad CEO.

It's the top job. It's not a training role.

If you can't see how a football club CEO has a direct effect on the playing results then thankfully for everyone we can stop here.

 

[Chucks]

I agree with your points and have made the same ones myself. Very troubling to hear them point to those examples. Thought it was a real sign of cracks the minute I heard that.

No idea what the incident was. Given it wasn't far past the time they were whacking up melatonin or whatever it has high potential to be stupid as.

Funny thing is that when I wrote that reply, I was just thinking out loud re the Geelong/Richmond/Collingwood examples. I forgot that Brasher had actually supposedly referred to those when he made that speech pre-Hawks game. There you go I guess - such a convenient precedent that a club could just milk all too easily if they wanted to, rightly or wrongly.

Depending on how the media coverage goes in the next few days, I suspect we may learn more about the HR-incident in the near future..

 

[faible]

If you can't see how a football club CEO has a direct effect on the playing results then thankfully we can stop here.

Yeah, if you can't see how a football club CEO doesn't have a direct effect on the playing results then we probably should stop here.

A real misnomer you're running with.

 

[Vander18]

Typically it would be Board < CEO < GM Football < Coaches < etc etc

A good CEO knows when to let their subordinates do their jobs and when to start asking questions and directing traffic more.

The snippet Lore posted says it well; That the GM Football is a critical appointment because they are the one who run the day-to-day business of football operations.

Point 5 is a good one, if it's been decided that XC's strength is commercial operations and it's decided his time is better focused on that aspect, then the GM Football can report directly to the board, so long as it's clear who's reporting where and to whom.

There's no one way to structure an organisation, but what's pretty consistent is that you put good people in place and let them do their jobs.

If a CEO is micromanaging the organisation, they're probably not a good CEO and/or they don't have good people in place.

We shouldn’t have to create a structure that works around the CEO’s strengths. If he isn’t capable of overseeing footy then he shouldn’t be CEO, he should be GM Commercial.

The CEO of a football club should be accountable for on-field performance. I don’t like the idea of a direct reporting line to a Board member who is only involved part-time with the club.

 

[CBombers17]

Yeah, if you can't see how a football club CEO doesn't have a direct effect on the playing results then we probably should stop here.

A real misnomer you're running with.

here's your quote - what am I missing?

"On-field performance is not inherently representative of the CEO being good or bad, supporters would like to think it is but it's really not. The CEO doesn't draft, condition, and coach the players."

 

[faible]

We shouldn’t have to create a structure that works around the CEO’s strengths. If he isn’t capable of overseeing footy then he shouldn’t be CEO, he should be GM Commercial.

The CEO of a football club should be accountable for on-field performance. I don’t like the idea of a direct reporting line to a Board member who is only involved part-time with the club.

As I said, I don't disagree that XC may not be the right person. People seem to be missing this.

 

[faible]

here's your quote - what am I missing?

"On-field performance is not inherently representative of the CEO being good or bad, supporters would like to think it is but it's really not. The CEO doesn't draft, condition, and coach the players."

You're missing the bolded, apparently.

We've been through this scenario on a number of occasions. We won't agree.

 

[Vander18]

Did I miss something here?
The first article says the CEO position is to remain vacant, then two paragraphs later says XC is the new CEO.

As well, the first article says that XC is the CEO within a revised executive structure, then the second article credits him with the revision of the executive structure. That makes it sound like they;

• interviewed for a CEO
• did not hire any interviewed candidates
• appointed Campbell from within as CEO
• allowed Campbell to restructure the executive with himself in pole position to continue as the CEO

Is that a rort?

Don’t know if it’s a rort but they 100% slipped it through the back door.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Poor Longy is wedged between her on one side and EFC on the other….

It's this I'm most interested in, what Michael thinks of it. He's a proud first people man who has an even keel.

Being an Aboriginal woman doesn't preclude Nova from being ill-considered, mistaken or overly dramatic, not that I'm saying she is, I wouldn't know.

I have no trouble believing Xavier being disrespectful or a dick, so I'm not defending him either.

I work in a senior position within an office whose focus is the first people's culture, community and self determination/treaty within Victoria. While my role is more technically focused and not directly involved with the core business, I have several Aboriginal friends who get frustrated by other members of their community who approach matters in a bombastic way that can slow progress, or use their ethnicity to mask poor performance at work or judgment by others.

I'd love to know what Michael thinks about Nova and this situation. Regardless, in this situation I find it easier to believe Xavier did disrespect Nova. Essendon need to be very careful how they handle this.

 

[tandino]

I'm sure in the end the coteries will sort all this out.

 

[CBombers17]

It's this I'm most interested in, what Michael thinks of it. He's a proud first people man who has an even keel.

Being an Aboriginal woman doesn't preclude Nova from being ill-considered, mistaken or overly dramatic, not that I'm saying she is, I wouldn't know.

I have no trouble believing Xavier being disrespectful or a dick, so I'm not defending him either.

I'd love to know what Michael thinks. I work in a senior position within an office whose focus is the first people's culture, community and self determination/treaty within Victoria. While my role is more technically focused and not directly involved with the core business, I have several Aboriginal friends who get frustrated by other members of their community who approach matters in a bombastic way that can slow progress, or use their ethnicity to mask poor performance at work or judgment by others.

Working in the sector myself and I am actually close mates with one of her best friends but I've never met her. That said I wouldn't touch this with a 10 footer.

From a distance- that she apparently she got along well with one person at the club and then not Campbell (who is currently also being criticised by others for ignoring relationships), suggests that there's probably at least a bit each way. Something Campbell should have avoided at all costs given the person and the importance of those engagements.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Working in the sector myself and I am actually close mates with one of her best friends but I've never met her. That said I wouldn't touch this with a 10 footer.

From a distance- that she apparently she got along well with one person at the club and then not Campbell (who is currently also being criticised by others for ignoring relationships), suggests that there's probably at least a bit each way. Something Campbell should have avoided at all costs given the person and the importance of those engagements.

A bit each way is often how these things are created. Yep, Campbell it seems should have been smarter.

 

[CBombers17]

A bit each way is often how these things are created. Yep, Campbell it seems should have been smarter.

High alert!!

 

[bomberlegend2007]

I just don’t get this decision. Puzzled.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Re reading the article, half the problem with those organising against the current regime is their need to include a whole heap of irrelevant shit / weak points in their correspondence (all the "proud club" crap) - diluting all their good arguments IMO.

All these nuffies were very happy with where the club was at 8 weeks ago.

Some rough results - during a rebuild - and they want to burn the joint down and start again.

What happens come Round 15 when we’re battling again? Burn it all down and have another crack?

Then do again after the season?

Of course you review where you’re at each season etc but seriously… supporters are emotional idiots and shouldn’t be listened to.

 

[The Prosecutor]

All these nuffies were very happy with where the club was at 8 weeks ago.

Some rough results - during a rebuild - and they want to burn the joint down and start again.

What happens come Round 15 when we’re battling again? Burn it all down and have another crack?

Then do again after the season?

Of course you review where you’re at each season etc but seriously… supporters are emotional idiots and shouldn’t be listened to.

I'd agree with you if not for the fact that the second half of last year was the exception, not the rule.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

All these nuffies were very happy with where the club was at 8 weeks ago.

Some rough results - during a rebuild - and they want to burn the joint down and start again.

What happens come Round 15 when we’re battling again? Burn it all down and have another crack?

Then do again after the season?

Of course you review where you’re at each season etc but seriously… supporters are emotional idiots and shouldn’t be listened to.

There is a lot of that happening.

Many have wanted an external review for years and Xavier's extension has clearly been a trigger point.

Myself, I'd like an external review and am completely fine if it recommends everything is great. I believe we need to get to a point in this industry where having an external review is periodic and not only when things aren't going well on-field.

My work goes under external scrutiny yearly and I welcome it. Continual growth and improvement is a healthy thing.

 

[Beerfish]

supporters are emotional idiots and shouldn’t be listened to.

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!