Review Is It Time For Roo To Go?

[The Sloane Ranger]

Burton was last man standing for the top role after Noble was 'poached' (the laugh's on them) by the AFL TBH. He was hardly a 'Roo appointment' to that role.

My understanding is that Burton said he wanted to come back to Adelaide and that meant one logical job

Your understanding is not quite right with Roo’s involvement

Yes Burton wanted to come me back to Adelaide however the club could have given him a lesser role in the footy Dept like Hass current role however Roo very much backing Burton for the higher role

My understanding is that there was 2-3 others candidates who went through the process and the feeling is that the decision was pre-determined and the AFC was just ticking the boxes

 

[Wood_Duck]

It's nothing to do with the Roo or the board. Hiring and firing staff is completely the responsibility of the CEO. The ONLY staff member the board hire and fire is the CEO.

Well, that's how it should work, and if it doesn't work like that at the AFC we have a problem board.

I think thats kinda the point

 

[Big Gazoongas]

Your understanding is not quite right with Roo’s involvement

Yes Burton wanted to come me back to Adelaide however the club could have given him a lesser role in the footy Dept like Hass current role however Roo very much backing Burton for the higher role

My understanding is that there was 2-3 others candidates who went through the process and the feeling is that the decision was pre-determined and the AFC was just ticking the boxes

What a surprise, we appointed Burton as the Head of footy Ops based on his vast experience in this vitally important role...............geez we have clowns running the place.

I'd be happy for Roo to get the flick if this is an example of the level of his business acumen.

Problem is that the club has an unhealthy appetite for appointing mates and former players that aren't up to the role.

Our governance is complete garbage.

 

[ManInTheArena]

How would you rate the governance of the AFC Board?

I get the sense it's a 'circle jerk board' and that's dangerous when there is no member accountability. I've seen it work where the performance is managed really hard but that doesn't seem to be happening. We need to go to membership voting rights. I thought I'd never say that, as I always thought football club supporters were too emotionally volatile but it works at numerous other (successful) clubs.

Chapman should go. He's been the Chair for 10 years and we've been okay during that time but you can probably put a fair bit of that down to other factors (e.g. quality recruiting) rather than governance. There's nothing in his performance that says he's a must keep Chair, probably the other way. Also, he seems to know too much about the operational details and comments on them in the media, which has always felt awkward to me in terms of best practice corporate governance. He should be talking about (and thinking about) strategy, not camps and aboriginal talking sticks. Jeff Kennett is a good example because he seems to always be talking about big picture strategy like keeping the Hawks in Tasmania, not playing internationally etc. rather than what players are doing or other trivial operation matters. That's one sign of a good Chair/President.

This is the AFC board composition:

• 3 x Bankers
  
• Chancellor of the University of South Australia
• Ex Federal Member of Parliament
• Police Assistant Commissioner
  
• 2 x Footballers

Immediate red flags:

• Obviously we have no skills matrix as there are people on the board that have no relevance to a highly effective AFL club board whatsoever. Skills matrix I'd come up with if I was doing it would be something like this (off the top of my head): Accountant, Footballer, Lawyer, Workplace Relations, Psychologist, Doctor, maybe another accountant or lawyer with mergers/acquisitions experience if that's our strategy (which I'm not sure I agree with). We have nothing even closely resembling a skills based board purposefully put together for a highly performing governance team.
• There are three bankers on the board which to me shows quite clearly board positions are filled by calling your network of contacts rather than professionally through advertised positions for particular skills (as per the matrix).
• Very little diversity of thinking styles and personality with most of the board being conservative bureaucrat types working in banking, government and education. It's a terribly stacked mix (or non-mix) of thinking styles and I'd get pissed off pretty quickly working for that group of individuals.

I can't see how that can possibly be a high performing board for the AFC. It's quite ametuer in it's composition.

What questions should they be asking after a season of great potential has gone to shyte? Who is accountable & what actions need to be taken to fix it?

It's kind of difficult to pinpoint accountability because normally the CEO is accountable for everything, but if Roo and Chapman are always frigging around in management then the accountability get's wishy-washy so I don't actually know who's accountable.

The board needs a complete overhaul. If we don't fix that there's not point fixing anything else. It's precarious but there are ways to drive that as the CEO.

Other than that I think we're as soft as a shit sandwich on performance management of employed staff, whether that's an attempt to cultivate a good culture or not I don't know, but I don't agree with that anyway.

 

[ManInTheArena]

BTW I think Roo should stay on the board but in his place. We do need an AFL industry person on the board and he is too well networked to let go. He just needs to learn how to be a proper board director and be kept in his place.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

I get the sense it's a 'circle jerk board' and that's dangerous when there is no member accountability. I've seen it work where the performance is managed really hard but that doesn't seem to be happening. We need to go to membership voting rights. I thought I'd never say that, as I always thought football club supporters were too emotionally volatile but it works at numerous other (successful) clubs.

Chapman should go. He's been the Chair for 10 years and we've been okay during that time but you can probably put a fair bit of that down to other factors (e.g. quality recruiting) rather than governance. There's nothing in his performance that says he's a must keep Chair, probably the other way. Also, he seems to know too much about the operational details and comments on them in the media, which has always felt awkward to me in terms of best practice corporate governance. He should be talking about (and thinking about) strategy, not camps and aboriginal talking sticks. Jeff Kennett is a good example because he seems to always be talking about big picture strategy like keeping the Hawks in Tasmania, not playing internationally etc. rather than what players are doing or other trivial operation matters. That's one sign of a good Chair/President.

This is the AFC board composition:

• 3 x Bankers
  
• Chancellor of the University of South Australia
• Ex Federal Member of Parliament
• Police Assistant Commissioner
  
• 2 x Footballers

Immediate red flags:

• Obviously we have no skills matrix as there are people on the board that have no relevance to a highly effective AFL club board whatsoever. Skills matrix I'd come up with if I was doing it would be something like this (off the top of my head): Accountant, Footballer, Lawyer, Workplace Relations, Psychologist, Doctor, maybe another accountant or lawyer with mergers/acquisitions experience if that's our strategy (which I'm not sure I agree with). We have nothing even closely resembling a skills based board purposefully put together for a highly performing governance team.
• There are three bankers on the board which to me shows quite clearly board positions are filled by calling your network of contacts rather than professionally through advertised positions for particular skills (as per the matrix).
• Very little diversity of thinking styles and personality with most of the board being conservative bureaucrat types working in banking, government and education. It's a terribly stacked mix (or non-mix) of thinking styles and I'd get pissed off pretty quickly working for that group of individuals.

I can't see how that can possibly be a high performing board for the AFC. It's quite ametuer in it's composition.



It's kind of difficult to pinpoint accountability because normally the CEO is accountable for everything, but if Roo and Chapman are always frigging around in management then the accountability get's wishy-washy so I don't actually know who's accountable.

The board needs a complete overhaul. If we don't fix that there's not point fixing anything else. It's precarious but there are ways to drive that as the CEO.

Other than that I think we're as soft as a shit sandwich on performance management of employed staff, whether that's an attempt to cultivate a good culture or not I don't know, but I don't agree with that anyway.

Firstly I'll say that I like what you've posted here.

Secondly I'll say you have back tracked enormously on a number of points in this piece to what you where posting/defending in another thread, reckon it was the Fitness department Thread.

 

[SaltPeter]

Chapman, Ruccuito and Fennell's existing terms on the board all expire in March next year.

 

[ManInTheArena]

Firstly I'll say that I like what you've posted here.

Secondly I'll say you have back tracked enormously on a number of points in this piece to what you where posting/defending in another thread, reckon it was the Fitness department Thread.

It may come across like I'm defending the board or CEO at times, but if you read it carefully I haven't. I'm usually just pointing out how things work or should work. I like facts and don't like to go off assumptions either, so I could really tee-off if I knew more, but I don't and my point is usually posters on here don't either.

 

[Tex200]

Reckon I'd prefer to see him concentrate on AFC board duties, rather than spending time presiding over a junior football program that appears to be teaching 10 year olds to run past the ball and shirt front unsuspecting kids into next week.

But that's just me.

 

[Scorpus]

I get the sense it's a 'circle jerk board' and that's dangerous when there is no member accountability. I've seen it work where the performance is managed really hard but that doesn't seem to be happening. We need to go to membership voting rights. I thought I'd never say that, as I always thought football club supporters were too emotionally volatile but it works at numerous other (successful) clubs.

Chapman should go. He's been the Chair for 10 years and we've been okay during that time but you can probably put a fair bit of that down to other factors (e.g. quality recruiting) rather than governance. There's nothing in his performance that says he's a must keep Chair, probably the other way. Also, he seems to know too much about the operational details and comments on them in the media, which has always felt awkward to me in terms of best practice corporate governance. He should be talking about (and thinking about) strategy, not camps and aboriginal talking sticks. Jeff Kennett is a good example because he seems to always be talking about big picture strategy like keeping the Hawks in Tasmania, not playing internationally etc. rather than what players are doing or other trivial operation matters. That's one sign of a good Chair/President.

This is the AFC board composition:

• 3 x Bankers
  
• Chancellor of the University of South Australia
• Ex Federal Member of Parliament
• Police Assistant Commissioner
  
• 2 x Footballers

Immediate red flags:

• Obviously we have no skills matrix as there are people on the board that have no relevance to a highly effective AFL club board whatsoever. Skills matrix I'd come up with if I was doing it would be something like this (off the top of my head): Accountant, Footballer, Lawyer, Workplace Relations, Psychologist, Doctor, maybe another accountant or lawyer with mergers/acquisitions experience if that's our strategy (which I'm not sure I agree with). We have nothing even closely resembling a skills based board purposefully put together for a highly performing governance team.
• There are three bankers on the board which to me shows quite clearly board positions are filled by calling your network of contacts rather than professionally through advertised positions for particular skills (as per the matrix).
• Very little diversity of thinking styles and personality with most of the board being conservative bureaucrat types working in banking, government and education. It's a terribly stacked mix (or non-mix) of thinking styles and I'd get pissed off pretty quickly working for that group of individuals.

I can't see how that can possibly be a high performing board for the AFC. It's quite ametuer in it's composition.



It's kind of difficult to pinpoint accountability because normally the CEO is accountable for everything, but if Roo and Chapman are always frigging around in management then the accountability get's wishy-washy so I don't actually know who's accountable.

The board needs a complete overhaul. If we don't fix that there's not point fixing anything else. It's precarious but there are ways to drive that as the CEO.

Other than that I think we're as soft as a shit sandwich on performance management of employed staff, whether that's an attempt to cultivate a good culture or not I don't know, but I don't agree with that anyway.

Interestingly enough, this is Hawthorn's board:

• Ex-Premier of Victoria
• Lawyer
• Vice-Chancellor of Swinburne
• Neurosurgeon
• 2x private company director
• CFA ex-CEO
• Fundraising and foundation expert
• Vitamin and supplement expert; ex Swisse Wellness CEO

Seems like a much more diverse board with experience better spread across the areas you were suggesting. Although there are no ex-footballers, only an ex-umpire

 

[crows dude]

Fagans in charge. He is responsible

Fagan is the CSO but he reports the Board. Chapman is the Chairman and Roo is the Footy director so all footy appointments go through them

 

[mulz]

Fagan is the CSO but he reports the Board. Chapman is the Chairman and Roo is the Footy director so all footy appointments go through them

the ceo manages the club not the board, he reports to the board, he oversees all appointments and the day to day runnings of the club, and if he isn't then he needs to go asap

fwiw id like to see Fagan gone, I rate him as high as trigg….which is pretty low

 

[MRB37]

that the decision was pre-determined and the AFC was just ticking the boxes

Bolton said the same thing when he interviewed here.

 

[MRB37]

Chapman, Ruccuito and Fennell's existing terms on the board all expire in March next year.

Chappy and Roo aren't leaving.

 

[crows dude]

the ceo manages the club not the board, he reports to the board, he oversees all appointments and the day to day runnings of the club, and if he isn't then he needs to go asap

fwiw id like to see Fagan gone, I rate him as high as trigg….which is pretty low

Thats what I said. he reports to the board. The board still approve everything so Roo as Footy Director and Chapman as Chairman go first.

 

[FAITH]

any truth to the rumours certain people on the board have a close association to campo's business?

 

[Sanders]

It's nothing to do with the Roo or the board. Hiring and firing staff is completely the responsibility of the CEO. The ONLY staff member the board hire and fire is the CEO.

Well, that's how it should work, and if it doesn't work like that at the AFC we have a problem board.

You’re right in theory, but we’re talking about an organisation with very specific sector skills and experience; things our CEO knows nothing about

Certainly the board shouldn’t be responsible for hirings, but the key football post (Burton) will be driven by a panel which is likely to be augmented by board and potentially outside experts.

Similar to how the CEO doesn’t choose the coach. It’s too operationally specific

Which gets back to your original point about governance and clear separation of duties and responsibilities

 

[Sanders]

any truth to the rumours certain people on the board have a close association to campo's business?

Just button it clown

 

[Sanders]

Didn't Roo pretty much tell Goodwin the job was his if he wanted it too?

No

 

[Coopers]

Chappy and Roo aren't leaving.

Well, obviously not. But the question is "should they".

 

[Rear Admiral]

Is Roo really responsible? Or is it a board thing? Or is it Pyke?

This right here.

Without a doubt, there are issues at the club, on and off the paddock - no question about it.

But my #1 question is who's the one pulling the strings?

Not for a moment am I saying that this is the be all, end all issue we're facing....but our massively excessive selection of Tall/Medium Timber is our #1 onfield issue, far and away above everything else.

 

[El Doederino]

I have no doubt Jim Hazell and Richard Fennell are on there as a requirement for Bendigo Bank's lending with us.

I thought Hazell was supposed to step down, but then delayed it with either Walsh or Foord's death? Anyway, I expect he will probably step down soon.

I think we need someone from the outside who is familiar with the Victorian AFL machine. Wayne Jackson would be ideal.

 

[ManInTheArena]

Interestingly enough, this is Hawthorn's board:

• Ex-Premier of Victoria
• Lawyer
• Vice-Chancellor of Swinburne
• Neurosurgeon
• 2x private company director
• CFA ex-CEO
• Fundraising and foundation expert
• Vitamin and supplement expert; ex Swisse Wellness CEO

Seems like a much more diverse board with experience better spread across the areas you were suggesting. Although there are no ex-footballers, only an ex-umpire

That's a pretty good skills based professional board. Looking at their profiles I'd be pretty confident with that board.

Richard Vandenberg is the ex-footballer.

The fundraising expert is a skill I missed that would be good or an AFL club.

 

[FAITH]

Just button it clown

What happened to us, we use to be good mates on here?

 

[King Elvis]

Burton was last man standing for the top role after Noble was 'poached' (the laugh's on them) by the AFL TBH. He was hardly a 'Roo appointment' to that role.

My understanding is that Burton said he wanted to come back to Adelaide and that meant one logical job

Failure to recruit quality people is still a management failure.