Markfs' Board of Directors Watch

[sideswipe]

So if someone is dissatisfied with the performance of the board they should keep it to themselves unless they name replacement(s) for the incumbent(s)?

Whatever the background of individual casual vacancy appointments of Eddie since ,well, all this century, the incumbents have performed poorly in the one key metric that matters most to every member and supporter. Overseeing the dramatic demise of 2010/2011 on field position of the club to where we are today. The board doesn't pick the players, develop the players, train the players or set the game plan but they ultimately appoint and measure the performance of everyone that does. Overlay an at best financial performance given the member/supporter base it's hard to see why anyone should have any confidence in anyone on the board.

Securing the Holden Centre was a massive achievement don't you think? Yes, our recent on field performance has been poor, but our supporter base was big when the club was a basket case off the field. This board has overseen an unparalleled period of financial success and strength for Collingwood. Take a look at other Melbourne clubs to compare...


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[MarkT2]

Securing the Holden Centre was a massive achievement don't you think? Yes, our recent on field performance has been poor, but our supporter base was big when the club was a basket case off the field. This board has overseen an unparalleled period of financial success and strength for Collingwood. Take a look at other Melbourne clubs to compare...

It has plenty of pros but some cons. The supporters still haven't warmed to it and arguably leaving Vic Park vacated part of our soul. It's been a commercial success and while I realise the importance of that aspect many supporters think we are too commercially focussed and have lost touch with the reason for our actual existence which historically is the opposite of much of what we stand for now.

Meanwhile there are a number of clubs who have secured home bases. Hawthorn do a pretty good job with a bit less fanfare. Geelong have used their locational advantages to good effect. We are hardly a mile in front of our real rivals on that (or any) front. In any event, it was a long time ago.

The board has also overseen Brad Cooper appointment and the loss of $12m in the pub business so lets not kid ourselves it's been all roses.

I don't know many members or supporters who deny that Eddie and the board elected by the members in 1998 did a fantastic job of turning the club around and making us highly relevant again. It's 2017 now.

 

[sideswipe]

It has plenty of pros but some cons. The supporters still haven't warmed to it and arguably leaving Vic Park vacated part of our soul. It's been a commercial success and while I realise the importance of that aspect many supporters think we are too commercially focussed and have lost touch with the reason for our actual existence which historically is the opposite of much of what we stand for now.

Meanwhile there are a number of clubs who have secured home bases. Hawthorn do a pretty good job with a bit less fanfare. Geelong have used their locational advantages to good effect. We are hardly a mile in front of our real rivals on that (or any) front. In any event, it was a long time ago.

The board has also overseen Brad Cooper appointment and the loss of $12m in the pub business so lets not kid ourselves it's been all roses.

I don't know many members or supporters who deny that Eddie and the board elected by the members in 1998 did a fantastic job of turning the club around and making us highly relevant again. It's 2017 now.

So you were happy with his performance in the early years from 1998? That's when Cooper came on board. Can't have it both ways. I would take the Holden Centre over Berwick every day of the week. We had to leave Vic Park/McHale stadium. It didn't have the space for a club in the 2000s - although McAlisters property spree in Lulie St turned out to be ahead of its time.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sideswipe]

One other thing - the idea that Collingwood has only recently "turned corporate" is flawed. From the days of Wren and McHale (incl their sons), the Pies board has been business focused. We were the first club to have the pre-cursors to corporate boxes at VIC Park and our board has had a strong composition of business identities. Even before Ranald McDonald's baby magpies. People on this thread are paying out on the board because we are losing games. Our footy is the problem, not the board.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[MarkT2]

So you were happy with his performance in the early years from 1998? That's when Cooper came on board. Can't have it both ways. I would take the Holden Centre over Berwick every day of the week. We had to leave Vic Park/McHale stadium. It didn't have the space for a club in the 2000s - although McAlisters property spree in Lulie St turned out to be ahead of its time.

Why can't I have it both ways? Nothing exists in a vacuum. Anyway, that's not what I'm asking for.

It's a bloody simple analysis. Early days the pros out-weighted the cons. Now it's reversed. We have been a rabble on and off the field since the end of 2012 when it was decided that the culture had to change. It didn't change on or off the field in spite of the upheaval in on field ranks. The great irony was that the changes were required in off field culture to a far greater extent than they were within the playing stocks. Unaccountable president appointed everything is a recipe for what we now have.

If you are happy with it then good for you. You can continue to not vote for noone in uncontested elections following casual vacancies filled with hand picked yes men & women. It's an abuse of the members and the principles of a membership based club and it isn't producing results. We laughed at Carlton being run at Elliot's will.

 

[MarkT2]

One other thing - the idea that Collingwood has only recently "turned corporate" is flawed. From the days of Wren and McHale (incl their sons), the Pies board has been business focused. We were the first club to have the pre-cursors to corporate boxes at VIC Park and our board has had a strong composition of business identities. Even before Ranald McDonald's baby magpies. People on this thread are paying out on the board because we are losing games. Our footy is the problem, not the board.

Yep. We led the pack on many fronts. No one wants us to forsake sensible commercial management. It's entirely an issue of priority and what results are paramount. Financial success is nothing but a means to an end. That end is premierships. We are failing dismally. Pointing to financial results which frankly are average anyway these days given our advantages is a combination of deflection and errant priorities.

 

[sideswipe]

Yep. We led the pack on many fronts. No one wants us to forsake sensible commercial management. It's entirely an issue of priority and what results are paramount. Financial success is nothing but a means to an end. That end is premierships. We are failing dismally. Pointing to financial results which frankly are average anyway these days given our advantages is a combination of deflection and errant priorities.

Failing dismally when it comes to flags? We r going better than most. What is your acceptable strike rate? Still not sure how that directly reflects on the board, especially in the short term. I would like to see the back of Eddie because of Goodes/Wilson issues. But his and his board's performance can't be classed as anything other than successful when it comes to off field. Anzac Day Queens bday - our commercial performance is sound.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Sco80]

Failing dismally when it comes to flags? We r going better than most. What is your acceptable strike rate? Still not sure how that directly reflects on the board, especially in the short term. I would like to see the back of Eddie because of Goodes/Wilson issues. But his and his board's performance can't be classed as anything other than successful when it comes to off field. Anzac Day Queens bday - our commercial performance is sound.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

The board is failing us in one key area. Our coaching panel and our head coach. It has become quite clear what needs to be done but the hoard will not overrule king Ed

 

[sideswipe]

The board is failing us in one key area. Our coaching panel and our head coach. It has become quite clear what needs to be done but the hoard will not overrule king Ed

Maybe - that very important argument has had nothing to do with the scurrilous personal attacks on board members which is how this thread has been conducted.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[MarkT2]

Failing dismally when it comes to flags? We r going better than most. What is your acceptable strike rate? Still not sure how that directly reflects on the board, especially in the short term. I would like to see the back of Eddie because of Goodes/Wilson issues. But his and his board's performance can't be classed as anything other than successful when it comes to off field. Anzac Day Queens bday - our commercial performance is sound.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

We've won 2 in more than half a century and not learned from the failings. We get to 2010 and 2011 and shoot ourselves in the foot yet again. I'm not interested in comparisons with St Kilda or Melbourne or averages I'm interested in making something from our advantages. Hawthorn have obviously been the pacesetter in recent years and decades but we are miles from second place on any analysis.

 

[Markfs]

Why can't I have it both ways? Nothing exists in a vacuum. Anyway, that's not what I'm asking for.

It's a bloody simple analysis. Early days the pros out-weighted the cons. Now it's reversed. We have been a rabble on and off the field since the end of 2012 when it was decided that the culture had to change. It didn't change on or off the field in spite of the upheaval in on field ranks. The great irony was that the changes were required in off field culture to a far greater extent than they were within the playing stocks. Unaccountable president appointed everything is a recipe for what we now have.

If you are happy with it then good for you. You can continue to not vote for noone in uncontested elections following casual vacancies filled with hand picked yes men & women. It's an abuse of the members and the principles of a membership based club and it isn't producing results. We laughed at Carlton being run at Elliot's will.

As far as i'm concerned, all of this is right on the money.

 

[Markfs]

Maybe - that very important argument has had nothing to do with the scurrilous personal attacks on board members which is how this thread has been conducted.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Ok so you disagree with my "personal attacks" but you agree that the current board is not delivering the outcomes that it should, and should be held accountable for any failings in the football dept including those of the coach?

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

The board is distracted by non core activities. The whole club has been drinking its own bathwater. No one is alive who saw us when we were an on-field power. Time for all to look in the mirror and realize we are a long way off the pace and then do something about it.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

Failing dismally when it comes to flags? We r going better than most. What is your acceptable strike rate? Still not sure how that directly reflects on the board, especially in the short term. I would like to see the back of Eddie because of Goodes/Wilson issues. But his and his board's performance can't be classed as anything other than successful when it comes to off field. Anzac Day Queens bday - our commercial performance is sound.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Please point me to the financial success table? Our record over the last 50 years is terrible where it matters, flags. Carlton, Richmond, Essendon, Geelong, Hawthorn, Brisbane, West Coast, North hAve all won more flags.

The Romans were great once to0, today they are a basket case. History is just that.

 

[sideswipe]

Please point me to the financial success table? Our record over the last 50 years is terrible where it matters, flags. Carlton, Richmond, Essendon, Geelong, Hawthorn, Brisbane, West Coast, North hAve all won more flags.

The Romans were great once to0, today they are a basket case. History is just that.

I am confused - are you saying history is important with your 50 year reference or are you saying it wasn't with the Romans? Don't forget, they gave us the aqueducts.

The club under Eddie's presidency has moved from the brink of insolvency to being financially solid. Yes, premierships are the be all end all, but the thing that the board really does is appoint coaches/footy staff and leave that to them (with more than a touch of most likely unsolicited advice on the way through).

The board oversees the club as an organisation and that is hugely important. Can you imagine having gone through any of the things such as the potential Hawks-Melb merge, being called on to tip in $$ like the demons members, board unrest at Richmond, Footscray almost folding, etc? We are lucky to have a stable board. And don't just say we have been successful because of our supporter base. We had a big supporter base under previous administrations and found financial strife.

Until someone points to some hard evidence of the board mis-managing things, then in the absence of superior alternatives, what do you want? Yes, there may be an element of groupthink in there - but I wouldn't know. And neither would you. Was the board bad or good in 2010 when we won the flag? It is a moot point.

I think we have bigger fish to fry than board composition.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

I am confused - are you saying history is important with your 50 year reference or are you saying it wasn't with the Romans? Don't forget, they gave us the aqueducts.

The club under Eddie's presidency has moved from the brink of insolvency to being financially solid. Yes, premierships are the be all end all, but the thing that the board really does is appoint coaches/footy staff and leave that to them (with more than a touch of most likely unsolicited advice on the way through).

The board oversees the club as an organisation and that is hugely important. Can you imagine having gone through any of the things such as the potential Hawks-Melb merge, being called on to tip in $$ like the demons members, board unrest at Richmond, Footscray almost folding, etc? We are lucky to have a stable board. And don't just say we have been successful because of our supporter base. We had a big supporter base under previous administrations and found financial strife.

Until someone points to some hard evidence of the board mis-managing things, then in the absence of superior alternatives, what do you want? Yes, there may be an element of groupthink in there - but I wouldn't know. And neither would you. Was the board bad or good in 2010 when we won the flag? It is a moot point.

I think we have bigger fish to fry than board composition.

Fish rots from the head, the head is the board.

 

[Queenie Hearts]

I am confused - are you saying history is important with your 50 year reference or are you saying it wasn't with the Romans? Don't forget, they gave us the aqueducts.

The club under Eddie's presidency has moved from the brink of insolvency to being financially solid. Yes, premierships are the be all end all, but the thing that the board really does is appoint coaches/footy staff and leave that to them (with more than a touch of most likely unsolicited advice on the way through).

The board oversees the club as an organisation and that is hugely important. Can you imagine having gone through any of the things such as the potential Hawks-Melb merge, being called on to tip in $$ like the demons members, board unrest at Richmond, Footscray almost folding, etc? We are lucky to have a stable board. And don't just say we have been successful because of our supporter base. We had a big supporter base under previous administrations and found financial strife.

Until someone points to some hard evidence of the board mis-managing things, then in the absence of superior alternatives, what do you want? Yes, there may be an element of groupthink in there - but I wouldn't know. And neither would you. Was the board bad or good in 2010 when we won the flag? It is a moot point.

I think we have bigger fish to fry than board composition.

The Board is the one fish that the members have the power to fry.

This is because the Board is supposed to be elected by the members - instead the President uses a casual vacancy provision in the Articles of Association to fill vacant directorships with hand picked individuals who are then confirmed unopposed without an election. There are 2 directors up for re-election this year - please someone stand against them so we can have a say in the running of our club.

The Board is supposed to represent members' interests in the fielding of a football team. As we plummet down the ladder for yet another year, they remain silent and unaccountable for the decisions for which they are responsible that lead to it. The Board appoints the CEO (who appoints the list manager) and the Coach. The CEO is responsible for the fixture which had a home game against St Kilda at Etihad and prioritised an event over football - it was not possible to play and win 3 games in 12 days. Collingwood volunteered for a 6 day break for the sake of a party when we could have played on Sunday and had a 7 day break. Our list management is in a mess - no KPF when we had opportunities to draft or trade in order to have a succession plan for Cloke. The players are trying so hard to execute on a game plan that clearly confuses them or which they cannot execute. The coach is clearly struggling to teach whatever it is- an inherent requirement of the job is to "coach" or "teach" the players the game plan, ensuring it is something that they can, in fact do.

The Board is supposed to manage the financial affairs of the club. if you read the accounts, the club made a loss for the last financial year. See below an excerpt from the 2016 Annual Report:

Having said all that, I see Eddie as like the Grand Old Duke of York - he marched us up to the top of the hill and he marched us down again. No-one can take the legacy of 2010 from him, however, time to accept that new people will take it from here. He has to accept that the succession plan has been a failure - I feel we are all waiting on Eddie, one man with an ego, to accept the Board under his Presidency made some poor decisions post 2010. Collingwood belongs to the supporters, not one man.

Frying the Board fish is precisely how the members can vote for a change.

 

[sideswipe]

The Board is the one fish that the members have the power to fry.

This is because the Board is supposed to be elected by the members - instead the President uses a casual vacancy provision in the Articles of Association to fill vacant directorships with hand picked individuals who are then confirmed unopposed without an election. There are 2 directors up for re-election this year - please someone stand against them so we can have a say in the running of our club.

The Board is supposed to represent members' interests in the fielding of a football team. As we plummet down the ladder for yet another year, they remain silent and unaccountable for the decisions for which they are responsible that lead to it. The Board appoints the CEO (who appoints the list manager) and the Coach. The CEO is responsible for the fixture which had a home game against St Kilda at Etihad and prioritised an event over football - it was not possible to play and win 3 games in 12 days. Collingwood volunteered for a 6 day break for the sake of a party when we could have played on Sunday and had a 7 day break. Our list management is in a mess - no KPF when we had opportunities to draft or trade in order to have a succession plan for Cloke. The players are trying so hard to execute on a game plan that clearly confuses them or which they cannot execute. The coach is clearly struggling to teach whatever it is- an inherent requirement of the job is to "coach" or "teach" the players the game plan, ensuring it is something that they can, in fact do.

The Board is supposed to manage the financial affairs of the club. if you read the accounts, the club made a loss for the last financial year. See below an excerpt from the 2016 Annual Report:
View attachment 368263
Having said all that, I see Eddie as like the Grand Old Duke of York - he marched us up to the top of the hill and he marched us down again. No-one can take the legacy of 2010 from him, however, time to accept that new people will take it from here. He has to accept that the succession plan has been a failure - I feel we are all waiting on Eddie, one man with an ego, to accept the Board under his Presidency made some poor decisions post 2010. Collingwood belongs to the supporters, not one man.

Frying the Board fish is precisely how the members can vote for a change.

Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday Anzac Days make this scheduling unavoidable. Next year will be just as bad but I see your point on the party. But that is a judgement call to get a big game in a sat arvo. We sucked the most in the first q on sat. That isn't fatigue.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sideswipe]

The Board is the one fish that the members have the power to fry.

This is because the Board is supposed to be elected by the members - instead the President uses a casual vacancy provision in the Articles of Association to fill vacant directorships with hand picked individuals who are then confirmed unopposed without an election. There are 2 directors up for re-election this year - please someone stand against them so we can have a say in the running of our club.

The Board is supposed to represent members' interests in the fielding of a football team. As we plummet down the ladder for yet another year, they remain silent and unaccountable for the decisions for which they are responsible that lead to it. The Board appoints the CEO (who appoints the list manager) and the Coach. The CEO is responsible for the fixture which had a home game against St Kilda at Etihad and prioritised an event over football - it was not possible to play and win 3 games in 12 days. Collingwood volunteered for a 6 day break for the sake of a party when we could have played on Sunday and had a 7 day break. Our list management is in a mess - no KPF when we had opportunities to draft or trade in order to have a succession plan for Cloke. The players are trying so hard to execute on a game plan that clearly confuses them or which they cannot execute. The coach is clearly struggling to teach whatever it is- an inherent requirement of the job is to "coach" or "teach" the players the game plan, ensuring it is something that they can, in fact do.

The Board is supposed to manage the financial affairs of the club. if you read the accounts, the club made a loss for the last financial year. See below an excerpt from the 2016 Annual Report:
View attachment 368263
Having said all that, I see Eddie as like the Grand Old Duke of York - he marched us up to the top of the hill and he marched us down again. No-one can take the legacy of 2010 from him, however, time to accept that new people will take it from here. He has to accept that the succession plan has been a failure - I feel we are all waiting on Eddie, one man with an ego, to accept the Board under his Presidency made some poor decisions post 2010. Collingwood belongs to the supporters, not one man.

Frying the Board fish is precisely how the members can vote for a change.

Quoting that $2m+ loss figure in isolation is somewhat simplistic and misleading. It included $4.1m of amortisation and depreciation for the Glasshouse. Before that depreciation figure made an operating profit of $1.5m. The 16th consecutive operating profit. This sustained profitability enables the Club to commit to big projects like the Glasshouse. Yes we are struggling on field and that is the ultimate goal, but I don't think you can legitimately question our recent financial performance. I would be happy to see new "outside" directors but haven't seen anything that justifies strong criticism of our current board.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Markfs]

Quoting that $2m+ loss figure in isolation is somewhat simplistic and misleading. It included $4.1m of amortisation and depreciation for the Glasshouse. Before that depreciation figure made an operating profit of $1.5m. The 16th consecutive operating profit. This sustained profitability enables the Club to commit to big projects like the Glasshouse. Yes we are struggling on field and that is the ultimate goal, but I don't think you can legitimately question our recent financial performance. I would be happy to see new "outside" directors but haven't seen anything that justifies strong criticism of our current board.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

well i'd be happy to see a fully functioning football division but that doesnt seem important to some people.

 

[sideswipe]

well i'd be happy to see a fully functioning football division but that doesnt seem important to some people.

OK, I'll bite. How do you define a fully functioning football division? If it is the bare win/loss ratio, that makes for a fair amount of dysfunction across the League. Have you supported the Pies for a long time? Wondering whether you have experienced real problems at this or any other sporting club. It is a vastly different situation from that which we are currently facing at Collingwood.

 

[Markfs]

OK, I'll bite. How do you define a fully functioning football division? If it is the bare win/loss ratio, that makes for a fair amount of dysfunction across the League. Have you supported the Pies for a long time? Wondering whether you have experienced real problems at this or any other sporting club. It is a vastly different situation from that which we are currently facing at Collingwood.

i wasnt actually offering a nibble. I was just reflecting on your comment about being happy to see outside directors. I'd be happy to see a better functioning football department. I would think that better oversight by the board would assist that. In the end of this year decisions will be made - one way or another. At this stage, those decisions will be made by ed and pert. I would assume that they have been the sole people making football decisions for the 10 years. I am not that hopeful at this stage.

btw i'm not sure what all your "credibility" questions are all about. people make comments on bf. it's what people do. i'm not particularly motivated to convince you of my credibility.

 

[MarkT2]

Quoting that $2m+ loss figure in isolation is somewhat simplistic and misleading. It included $4.1m of amortisation and depreciation for the Glasshouse. Before that depreciation figure made an operating profit of $1.5m. The 16th consecutive operating profit. This sustained profitability enables the Club to commit to big projects like the Glasshouse. Yes we are struggling on field and that is the ultimate goal, but I don't think you can legitimately question our recent financial performance. I would be happy to see new "outside" directors but haven't seen anything that justifies strong criticism of our current board.

You are not on as firm ground as you seem to think with the financial arguments. We have done nothing special at all.

Collingwood have made reasonable profits over the duration but nowhere near anything startling given the membership and supporter base and propensity for publicity.

What Eddie did when he first came into power was to take an old fashioned worn out club and reinvigorate it. He used his media nouse, his networks and ability to network people with each other to open revenue streams sell the club and what it could provide to sponsors and members. I have seen this first and he did a very good job at this. In many ways Eddie was the right man for the time and we desperately needed that right man. That was a long time ago now.

Eddie does not have a great track record running businesses and there have been some poor decisions made at Collingwood. The pub fiasco chief among them but not the only folly.

Overall the results have been nothing more than OK. The initial period was first rate the middle period average given the support base, high profile draw (itself a credit to Eddie) and on field results while in recent time we have been treading water at best like we have in all parts of the organisation. Quoting headline profits before real costs is deliberately misleading but even then $1.5m for us should be at best par for the course. We sell legends memberships to access GF tickets, we fill the G more often than anyone and people tune in to see us win or to see us lose.

 

[Markfs]

You are not on as firm ground as you seem to think with the financial arguments. We have done nothing special at all.

Collingwood have made reasonable profits over the duration but nowhere near anything startling given the membership and supporter base and propensity for publicity.

What Eddie did when he first came into power was to take an old fashioned worn out club and reinvigorate it. He used his media nouse, his networks and ability to network people with each other to open revenue streams sell the club and what it could provide to sponsors and members. I have seen this first and he did a very good job at this. In many ways Eddie was the right man for the time and we desperately needed that right man. That was a long time ago now.

Eddie does not have a great track record running businesses and there have been some poor decisions made at Collingwood. The pub fiasco chief among them but not the only folly.

Overall the results have been nothing more than OK. The initial period was first rate the middle period average given the support base, high profile draw (itself a credit to Eddie) and on field results while in recent time we have been treading water at best like we have in all parts of the organisation. Quoting headline profits before real costs is deliberately misleading but even then $1.5m for us should be at best par for the course. We sell legends memberships to access GF tickets, we fill the G more often than anyone and people tune in to see us win or to see us lose.

May I add something.... the running of the club is not just finance. Eddie came to the club that had a dysfunctional board for decades - on and off. He demanded an open cheque from the membership to do whatever he thought was necessary to turn the club around. I remember at the time that I thought that we desperately needed unity ....people pulling together in one direction. Eddie offered it.... he demanded it. He didnt want to be elected in. He wanted a bloodless coup....and he got it and he did a good job.

But we've had nearly 20 years of no alternative voices in the magpie community. The only credible alternative that has been put forward is Craig Kelly and he's not that interested. If Eddie cant open up the board positions to alternate views then every rising star will get batted down before they even got a foothold....I am not hopeful that continuing this dictatorship is going to be beneficial to the long term interests of the club

 

[Art Corvelay]

Maybe the Collingwood supporters who would be credentialed to get a place on the board are content with the job being done, hence the lack of genuine oppenents? Just a thought.

I agree from the outside it looks like it needs a shakeup.