Markfs' Board of Directors Watch

[doodles98]

Listening to the pre-match yesterday the SEN team had Brian Cook on the show. During that time there was a brief discussion on how their club has remained relevant at the pointy end of the ladder for 10 years (aside from 2015).

Cook in his response briefly touched on them having 5 core competitive advantages which they have successfully translated into onfield results. He didn't go into the detail of what they were, but an easy assumption is that their home ground advantage is one. It got me thinking about what ours are? 76woodenspooners, doodles98 & Bad Horse youre clearly the most intelligent posters on here so what are your thoughts?

I can name three. One is us the supporters there is no other club that can match us in sheer volume and when united we are a significant force. The second is 14 matches at the G each and every year and the third is our revenue which has been number 1 in the league for as far back as I can remember. The thing is the latter two both stem from us as supporters we drive the successes of our club yet where is the engagement? When was the last time the board made a decision to benefit us the clubs greatest asset? A membership price freeze once a decade is about the best I can come up with, whoop dee ******* doo!

It's clear we are becoming increasingly disenchanted with home attendances plummeting over the past 18 months and membership numbers dropping (despite the freebies to pad things out). When was the last time we saw growth in our finances?

We can't continue to prop up the club as we once did without change because as it currently stands we're going nowhere mired in our own sense of supremacy which trickles like shit downhill from board level!

Sticking to topic. If we think we have a problem with Ed, then we have a problem with the board. That board for me is a fairly typical board in many ways. And that's the problem. We are a football club with one sole focus that should drive us, we are not some profit making sporting conglomerate. It is an Eddy Maguire board. Compliant and devoid of the one real core expertise they would need to ask hard questions and drive change in the footballing department. Who is our fiery old patriot who will bang the table and say enough is enough I can't watch us continue to slide like this? Which of them have the experience to be ahead of the curve and proactive in terms of assessing and addressing issues in our football direction.... Rather than just ticking off whatever Pert and Ed puts before them?.

 

[Markfs]

Listening to the pre-match yesterday the SEN team had Brian Cook on the show. During that time there was a brief discussion on how their club has remained relevant at the pointy end of the ladder for 10 years (aside from 2015).

Cook in his response briefly touched on them having 5 core competitive advantages which they have successfully translated into onfield results. He didn't go into the detail of what they were, but an easy assumption is that their home ground advantage is one. It got me thinking about what ours are? 76woodenspooners, doodles98 & Bad Horse youre clearly the most intelligent posters on here so what are your thoughts?

I can name three. One is us the supporters there is no other club that can match us in sheer volume and when united we are a significant force. The second is 14 matches at the G each and every year and the third is our revenue which has been number 1 in the league for as far back as I can remember. The thing is the latter two both stem from us as supporters we drive the successes of our club yet where is the engagement? When was the last time the board made a decision to benefit us the clubs greatest asset? A membership price freeze once a decade is about the best I can come up with, whoop dee ******* doo!

It's clear we are becoming increasingly disenchanted with home attendances plummeting over the past 18 months and membership numbers dropping (despite the freebies to pad things out). When was the last time we saw growth in our finances?

We can't continue to prop up the club as we once did without change because as it currently stands we're going nowhere mired in our own sense of supremacy which trickles like shit downhill from board level!

1. Support from the Geelong Council
2. Quality of life for footballers and their families outside football - being able to live in moggs creek but still get to training
3. Seen as the go-to club for western Victorian footballers
4. Footballers and their families sharing their lives outside footy - seeing each other down the street, churches, shopping, schools
5. I'll think about it

 

[MarkT2]

There must be a reason why members never get to vote.
Some on here think it is because all the members think the board is doing a great job.
That's an interesting theory.

 

[doodles98]

1. Support from the Geelong Council
2. Quality of life for footballers and their families outside football - being able to live in moggs creek but still get to training
3. Seen as the go-to club for western Victorian footballers
4. Footballers and their families sharing their lives outside footy - seeing each other down the street, churches, shopping, schools
5. I'll think about it

5. Having a mafia godfather run the show

 

[Markfs]

Sticking to topic. If we think we have a problem with Ed, then we have a problem with the board. That board for me is a fairly typical board in many ways. And that's the problem. We are a football club with one sole focus that should drive us, we are not some profit making sporting conglomerate. It is an Eddy Maguire board. Compliant and devoid of the one real core expertise they would need to ask hard questions and drive change in the footballing department. Who is our fiery old patriot who will bang the table and say enough is enough I can't watch us continue to slide like this? Which of them have the experience to be ahead of the curve and proactive in terms of assessing and addressing issues in our football direction.... Rather than just ticking off whatever Pert and Ed puts before them?.

We need more ex footballers on the board.... actually I would replace the current ex footballer and add some more. The contrast with hawthorn board is startling. The current board looks like a board that you would have when you're trading under financial difficulties.....like around 2000 not for 2017

 

[Markfs]

There must be a reason why members never get to vote.
Some on here think it is because all the members think the board is doing a great job.
That's an interesting theory.

Eddie cuts off rivals at the pass.... he does that in his job too. He either knobbles them or brings them in as a friend....keep your friends close and your enemies even closer...

 

[Anzacday]

Eddie cuts off rivals at the pass.... he does that in his job too. He either knobbles
bones them or brings them in as a friend....keep your friends close and your enemies even closer...

EFA

 

[Markfs]

It surprises that the executive member of the board and biggest cancer at the club was not mentioned to kick off this amazing thread.

Gary Pert can seriously EAD. He has his dirty ******* fingers in every goddamn pie at our once great club as an executive member of the board, the CEO and as a goddamn member of the list management team! WTF are we doing with that numpty involved in football decisions.

In the name of all that is good Eddie get rid of this absolute ******* joker from our club, please. He's killing us.

To answer your question, I haven't concentrated on Pert or Eddie because they are well known to everyone. The other people on the board are rarely mentioned anywhere except when they are reinstalled without a vote every time the board positions come up for a vote.

 

[Markfs]

EFA

essential fatty acid?

 

[Markfs]

There must be a reason why members never get to vote.
Some on here think it is because all the members think the board is doing a great job.
That's an interesting theory.

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2017-02-28/rothschild-and-powell-join-richmond-board

I don't particularly agree with the people that were selected for the Richmond board...but if you're going to go corporate then the process outlined in this link appears to be better than just selecting mates...

 

[doodles98]

We need more ex footballers on the board.... actually I would replace the current ex footballer and add some more. The contrast with hawthorn board is startling. The current board looks like a board that you would have when you're trading under financial difficulties.....like around 2000 not for 2017

I would say that having one more ex player, but more importantly an ex coach who has stayed in touch and involved with the game is an absolute must for that board if it is to have any semblance of an ability to ask hard questions of our footballing department.
The current board completely lacks the expertise in football department matters to be anything other than compliant yes men to Ed and pert.

 

[sr36]

Heres the hawthorn board for interests sake...

Just look for the bits that i underlined....

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/club/people/the-board

Richard Garvey is a company director and adviser to a number of privately owned businesses and family groups. Prior to his current role he spent 34 years in chartered accounting including the last 22 years as a partner of KPMG. Richard was the lead audit partner for Hawthorn Football Club between 1998 and 2007.

Linda is the Vice-Chancellor & President of Swinburne University - educating 55,000 students in disciplines ranging from science, business, engineering and information technology to design and law. Linda has served on a number of national company boards and is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.

Andrew Kaye was appointed to the Board in February 2011 and is a longstanding Hawthorn member. He is a Neurosurgeon and Professor of Surgery and Head of the Department of Surgery at The University of Melbourne. He is the Director of the Department of Neurosurgery at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. He has had extensive experience in education, training and research.

Bruce Stevenson was appointed to the Hawthorn Football Club Board of Directors in 2013. He is a 1971 Premiership player, a Life Member of the Club and has been a Nominee/Director of the Hawthorn Football Club Foundation since 2010. In business, Bruce owned and operated Stevenson Automotive from 1989 to 2011. This Company operated Toyota and Audi Motor Dealerships across Tasmania. He is also the former Chairman and Founding Director of the Tastel Community Telco.

Andrew Gowers, who will take on the role of Football Director, was a member of the Club’s 1991 premiership team and played 140 AFL games for Hawthorn and the Brisbane Bears between 1988 and 1999.

Peter Nankivell has been a practising commercial lawyer for 27 years and consults to Thomson Geer lawyers where he has been for 20 years. He was formerly the Chairman of Partners at Herbert Geer and is currently Chair of the Centre for Eye Research Australia Ltd and a Director of Xavier College Foundation Limited.

Richie Vandenberg's career outside his family enterprise commenced as a professional athlete. Between the years of 1997 and 2007, he played with Hawthorn Football club and achieved Captaincy from 2005 until 2007.

Lucinda Nolan brings a wealth of knowledge to the club with extensive experience across the Emergency Services Sector. In 2015, she was selected as the first female CEO of the Country Fire Authority (CFA), one of the world’s largest volunteer based emergency service organisations.

I don't see the relevance of what you've underlined. The fact that Andy Gowers had a slightly more successful playing career than McMullin seems irrelevant to me.

But to me the really significant difference between the make up of the two boards is diversity of background. Ours appears to be solely corporate and financial. Whereas the Hawks have a really impressive range of backgrounds.

 

[MarkT2]

Eddie cuts off rivals at the pass.... he does that in his job too. He either knobbles them or brings them in as a friend....keep your friends close and your enemies even closer...

Yes I know how Eddie works.

 

[Bad Horse]

Listening to the pre-match yesterday the SEN team had Brian Cook on the show. During that time there was a brief discussion on how their club has remained relevant at the pointy end of the ladder for 10 years (aside from 2015).

Cook in his response briefly touched on them having 5 core competitive advantages which they have successfully translated into onfield results. He didn't go into the detail of what they were, but an easy assumption is that their home ground advantage is one. It got me thinking about what ours are? 76woodenspooners, doodles98 & Bad Horse youre clearly the most intelligent posters on here so what are your thoughts?

I can name three. One is us the supporters there is no other club that can match us in sheer volume and when united we are a significant force. The second is 14 matches at the G each and every year and the third is our revenue which has been number 1 in the league for as far back as I can remember. The thing is the latter two both stem from us as supporters we drive the successes of our club yet where is the engagement? When was the last time the board made a decision to benefit us the clubs greatest asset? A membership price freeze once a decade is about the best I can come up with, whoop dee ******* doo!

It's clear we are becoming increasingly disenchanted with home attendances plummeting over the past 18 months and membership numbers dropping (despite the freebies to pad things out). When was the last time we saw growth in our finances?

We can't continue to prop up the club as we once did without change because as it currently stands we're going nowhere mired in our own sense of supremacy which trickles like shit downhill from board level!

I genuinely think we overestimate the strength of our "competitive advantages"

We used to laugh at Carlton for their "We are Carlton **** the rest" exceptionalism.

I believe Carlton have learned, we have yet to face the same crunch that will force us to. I think that crunch is coming.

I think our supporter base is a competitive advantage for Collingwood the business, up to a point. I think we are eroding that advantage at a rate of knots.

We had a significant advantage there in two areas, sheer numbers and passion. The numbers are eroding, I think it would be very very interesting to see the percentage of Collingwood supporters versus age. The impression I get is that our assumed numerical advantage is steadily eroding with new generations. It is still strong in the over 45s but drops from there. So we still have an outsized reach there, and more than our share of influencers in business and government, but that will not last as that generation passes from work and financial dominance. We have not adapted, and it will show in the next generations.

There is a reason we are popular newspaper and traditional media fodder. The demographic who still watch free to air TV and read newspapers is the same as our dominant generation. I would watch maybe 2 hours of free to air tv a week, cant remember the last time I picked up a physical newspaper, I get my media online like most of my generation and we have more choices than that. I read the Guardian online and Crikey mostly if I want news coverage.

We retain that primal passion to a point. It has meant that our financial and attendance record has held up better than most in lean times, and Collingwood supporters seem willing to spend more on the club than most. I think this has been a competitive advantage in the past but we have turned it into a curse by monetising our supporter base to a ridiculous degree and forgetting what brought that passion in the first place.

I have stopped receiving emails from the club because I am heartily sick of the many and varied "exclusive opportunities" that translate into more and more varied options for mates of Gary Pert to extract money from me. Star athletic, what a cluster****. Viagogo for **** sake...a more wretched hive of scum and villainy you are unlikely to find. We have basically sold our supporters and their passion to commercial interests so many times over there is nothing left to sell. I genuinely cannot remember the last time the club gave something back to supporters, no strings attached. I set my spam filters to exterminate now.

Where is that sense of engagement now? That sense of belonging? We have sold it down the river along with our integrity.

And the reality is we have sold it for a few magic beans. I think we will get a shock at the end of this season when the bottom line comes in somewhere red to the tune of 5 million. Our revenue performance is not actually great all things considered and our margins have shrunk. We havent really built that much compared to some others who have invested in real financial security like Hawthorn, Geelong, West Coast. We count on the continuing passion of our supporters to deliver the moolah come what may. I think that is a flawed strategy if we dont give them something to be passionate about.

So we remain a brand, a large and very recognisable brand, but I no longer know what it means. We are Holden, at best, (the irony of our timing with a dying local brand that failed to adapt is piquant) and in danger of becoming Pan Am, Kodak, Nokia.

For my generation and younger, we are no longer anything special frankly. The reckoning is coming. Demographic change grinds slowly, but it grinds fine.

And my one question for the board would be; who there is raising these issues? Who speaks for the average supporters, the ones who dont have a string of in crowd powerhouses as contacts on their smartphones?

Some of the most spectacular corporate failures have traced back to boards asleep at the wheel because they were made up of the same in crowd, bankers and partners of the top accounting and legal firms who are all on multiple boards together and had the same blind spots. I feel we are uncomfortably in the same territory here.

 

[Scodog10]

Thanks Bad Horse and doodles98. You're commentary in particular scares me a little horse, because you can see that change reflected in our annual reports.

One of the issues North Melbourne confronted was that they never cashed in on their era of dominance. From 06 to 13 we were finalists, prelim finalists on 5 occasions and grand finalists twice with one premiership to show. Now that's as good an era as we've had since the 50's.

At the peak of that period revenue rose to $75m in both 10 & 11. In the intervening period despite adding a revenue stream through rent of the Glasshouse which attributed $5m in 2016 our revenue has dropped by over 5%. As you say it will no doubt go backward this year with early season results as a guide.

Whilst that figure remains number 1 across the league being so dependent on the members to drive revenue is folly. The decision to move away from that and diversify was sound enough choosing a netball franchise is just mind boggling though because they aren't profitable, but the fact remains, for me at least, that we've been getting high on the smell of our own farts for too long.

Footy is a unique business, but a business all the same so when your core business is struggling the way our has been for going on four years tough decisions are needed. They should start with the CEO, but I doubt the board has it in them to make that sort of call!

I also think a football board member would be fantastic, but the only names that spring to mind are Maxwell, Ball and Clement so I'm clearly reaching...

 

[Markfs]

I don't see the relevance of what you've underlined. The fact that Andy Gowers had a slightly more successful playing career than McMullin seems irrelevant to me.

But to me the really significant difference between the make up of the two boards is diversity of background. Ours appears to be solely corporate and financial. Whereas the Hawks have a really impressive range of backgrounds.

im making the point that the hawks have three ex players....and mcmullin was a bit player who played about 25 games for the pies. Gowers was a premiership player who is now the football director....

to say that gowers was slightly more successful than mcmullin is like saying jordan russell was a solid AFL player for us....

so even with that, the hawks wanted bruce stevenson on the board who is an ex premiership player and richie vandenberg....

you have got to be kidding me if you dont think this is a significant difference...

 

[doodles98]

Thanks Bad Horse and doodles98. You're commentary in particular scares me a little horse, because you can see that change reflected in our annual reports.

One of the issues North Melbourne confronted was that they never cashed in on their era of dominance. From 06 to 13 we were finalists, prelim finalists on 5 occasions and grand finalists twice with one premiership to show. Now that's as good an era as we've had since the 50's.

At the peak of that period revenue rose to $75m in both 10 & 11. In the intervening period despite adding a revenue stream through rent of the Glasshouse which attributed $5m in 2016 our revenue has dropped by over 5%. As you say it will no doubt go backward this year with early season results as a guide.

Whilst that figure remains number 1 across the league being so dependent on the members to drive revenue is folly. The decision to move away from that and diversify was sound enough choosing a netball franchise is just mind boggling though because they aren't profitable, but the fact remains, for me at least, that we've been getting high on the smell of our own farts for too long.

Footy is a unique business, but a business all the same so when your core business is struggling the way our has been for going on four years tough decisions are needed. They should start with the CEO, but I doubt the board has it in them to make that sort of call!

I also think a football board member would be fantastic, but the only names that spring to mind are Maxwell, Ball and Clement so I'm clearly reaching...

Call me old fashioned.

I don't expect our club to give anything back to me, other than putting it's whole focus and best efforts into our core reason for existence; namely, our football team competing for flags. This has not been happening in my view. You fill a board with corporates.. you will get run like a corporation and they are soulless things at heart.
We have a salary cap and a football department cap that we don;t want to pay beyond (and if we do we then make our opponents stronger also). So what is the benefit in terms of our core goal of looking to "diversify" to make more money or get more revenue security? If revenue security is not a major issue and we can't spend extra profits to the benefit of our team winning a flag anymore; what's the point? There is absolutely no payoff to our football teams chances of success if we make a $100K profit or a $5mill profit.

The reason our board is so focused on this corporate expansion is because that is what they know about, it's their area of expertise; it's where they can show they have some relevance and knowledge. They haven't got the slightest clue about football department matters as the whole Gubby Allen saga so obviously demonstrated. So they quite naturally put their focus and attention into the agenda areas where they can have a voice because their expertise is respected.

The boards function should be to oversee not only the financial and business direction of the organization; but also, OBVIOUSLY, the progress toward attaining our football goals. This board cannot do the latter from any position of expertise. They can't challenge in this area with any authority coming from experience and expertise. So they don't. They eat their canapes, ask a few questions to seem relevant and then just leave it all to Pert and Ed... Effectively this boards composition tells me that our entire football direction is left to Pert and Ed with no real oversight.... and Ed is a gameshow host ffs.

Our revenue position with members and sponsors will always be good and fairly stable relative to most other clubs. Therefore by comparison to most other clubs we have LESS reason to go down this diversification path. By diversifying, all we are doing is exposing the club to more risk financially and taking our eye off the ball administratively; which ultimately will only harm our chances of attaining core goals. But with a board like this... it's no wonder we are headed where we are.

 

[Brad Goodman]

It's as though you think businesspeople aren't the most qualified people for the board. They are the ONLY qualified people for the board! Needs to be from a variety of disciplines of course, but still.

The jobs for the boys thing doesn't sit that well with me, but if they're equipped for the job then so be it.

Football clubs are now businesses and should be run as such. That includes putting community and fan engagement in the broad basket of corporate social responsibility - this does not require a specific board member with specific experience in that area.

 

[Brad Goodman]

im making the point that the hawks have three ex players....and mcmullin was a bit player who played about 25 games for the pies. Gowers was a premiership player who is now the football director....

to say that gowers was slightly more successful than mcmullin is like saying jordan russell was a solid AFL player for us....

so even with that, the hawks wanted bruce stevenson on the board who is an ex premiership player and richie vandenberg....

you have got to be kidding me if you dont think this is a significant difference...

Andrew Gowers football career has absolutely zero relevance to his ability to help run a football club. None whatsoever.

 

[sr36]

im making the point that the hawks have three ex players....and mcmullin was a bit player who played about 25 games for the pies. Gowers was a premiership player who is now the football director....

to say that gowers was slightly more successful than mcmullin is like saying jordan russell was a solid AFL player for us....

so even with that, the hawks wanted bruce stevenson on the board who is an ex premiership player and richie vandenberg....

you have got to be kidding me if you dont think this is a significant difference...

You're right. There does some to be a significant discrepancy in terms of valuing AFL experience. But Andy Gowers was a hack. It would be a stretch for me to compare him to our premiership players - Goldsack, Blair and Macaffer.

I'm more concerned that we only have financial types who all probably come from a similar perspective, whereas the Hawks also have the emergency services, education, health, law.

 

[doodles98]

Andrew Gowers football career has absolutely zero relevance to his ability to help run a football club. None whatsoever.

What??? Yes it clearly does.. he has core knowledge of the industry and what it takes to achieve the main goal.

But someone who runs a vitamin company does??? It's like you don;t think the board ultimately overseas the CEO and his football department, it's direction and the major appointments there. It's like you don;t think experience and expertise within a specific field counts for anything. You think a corporate financier or a vitamin company founder is qualified in this particular field of football judgement do you? When we are talking about whether or not to extend a coaches contract, or have a succession plan etc. How does being a business person make you a better judge in those areas than someone who has worked and lived football and football clubs. ?

Have a look at boards of major corporations.. their boards are always more than well represented with experts in their own core fields.. be it banking, IT, engineering, scientific research. It's basic common sense.

They also have a mix. Currently we have 1 token football board member, and a bunch of corporates. It's an unhealthy stooge board set up by the Prez to rubber stamp his dictatorship.

Business people are NOT the only people qualified to be on boards. GOOD boards are supposed to be a mixture of backgrounds and talents and most have plenty of non-business technical and academic types. I'll tell my uncle who is a scientist he shouldn;t be on the board of the major company he sits on shall I then??

 

[Markfs]

You're right. There does some to be a significant discrepancy in terms of valuing AFL experience. But Andy Gowers was a hack. It would be a stretch for me to compare him to our premiership players - Goldsack, Blair and Macaffer.

I'm more concerned that we only have financial types who all probably come from a similar perspective, whereas the Hawks also have the emergency services, education, health, law.

well its a tremendous topic for another thread...

 

[Markfs]

What??? Yes it clearly does.. he has core knowledge of the industry and what it takes to achieve the main goal.

But someone who runs a vitamin company does??? It's like you don;t think the board ultimately overseas the CEO and his football department, it's direction and the major appointments there. It's like you don;t think experience and expertise within a specific field counts for anything. You think a corporate financier or a vitamin company founder is qualified in this particular field of football judgement do you? When we are talking about whether or not to extend a coaches contract, or have a succession plan etc. How does being a business person make you a better judge in those areas than someone who has worked and lived football and football clubs. ?

Have a look at boards of major corporations.. their boards are always more than well represented with experts in their own core fields.. be it banking, IT, engineering, scientific research. It's basic common sense.

They also have a mix. Currently we have 1 token football board member, and a bunch of corporates. It's an unhealthy stooge board set up by the Prez to rubber stamp his dictatorship.

Business people are NOT the only people qualified to be on boards. GOOD boards are supposed to be a mixture of backgrounds and talents and most have plenty of non-business technical and academic types. I'll tell my uncle who is a scientist he shouldn;t be on the board of the major company he sits on shall I then??

beautifully said doodles

and the fact that gowers actually played with a premiership team gives him some advantage over a guy who played a handful of games with a couple of clubs and wasnt even a regular player...and the thing that people seem to forget is that gowers is only one ex player out of three who are on the hawthorn board.... can you imagine a discussion on that board about what aspects make up a successful team...and then imagine the collingwood board having the same discussion.

 

[Markfs]

Call me old fashioned.

I don't expect our club to give anything back to me, other than putting it's whole focus and best efforts into our core reason for existence; namely, our football team competing for flags. This has not been happening in my view. You fill a board with corporates.. you will get run like a corporation and they are soulless things at heart.
We have a salary cap and a football department cap that we don;t want to pay beyond (and if we do we then make our opponents stronger also). So what is the benefit in terms of our core goal of looking to "diversify" to make more money or get more revenue security? If revenue security is not a major issue and we can't spend extra profits to the benefit of our team winning a flag anymore; what's the point? There is absolutely no payoff to our football teams chances of success if we make a $100K profit or a $5mill profit.

The reason our board is so focused on this corporate expansion is because that is what they know about, it's their area of expertise; it's where they can show they have some relevance and knowledge. They haven't got the slightest clue about football department matters as the whole Gubby Allen saga so obviously demonstrated. So they quite naturally put their focus and attention into the agenda areas where they can have a voice because their expertise is respected.

The boards function should be to oversee not only the financial and business direction of the organization; but also, OBVIOUSLY, the progress toward attaining our football goals. This board cannot do the latter from any position of expertise. They can't challenge in this area with any authority coming from experience and expertise. So they don't. They eat their canapes, ask a few questions to seem relevant and then just leave it all to Pert and Ed... Effectively this boards composition tells me that our entire football direction is left to Pert and Ed with no real oversight.... and Ed is a gameshow host ffs.

Our revenue position with members and sponsors will always be good and fairly stable relative to most other clubs. Therefore by comparison to most other clubs we have LESS reason to go down this diversification path. By diversifying, all we are doing is exposing the club to more risk financially and taking our eye off the ball administratively; which ultimately will only harm our chances of attaining core goals. But with a board like this... it's no wonder we are headed where we are.

another beautiful piece of work.... i'm reading the posts backwards. I agree that as a collingwood supporter, i'm looking for premierships and i'm not really fussed about free hats or whatever. if they want to give something back, give me a premiership.

the fact is a premiership or a series of premierships will cure any problems with membership numbers and satisfaction.

 

[doodles98]

beautifully said doodles

and the fact that gowers actually played with a premiership team gives him some advantage over a guy who played a handful of games with a couple of clubs and wasnt even a regular player...and the thing that people seem to forget is that gowers is only one ex player out of three who are on the hawthorn board.... can you imagine a discussion on that board about what aspects make up a successful team...and then imagine the collingwood board having the same discussion.

God.. I just imagined our board doing that.. Basically a BigFooty discussion but with LESS relevant personal experience and without the passion. I just can't see how this board will have the expertise and balls to stand up and challenge Ed and pert when it comes to football matters. Hypothetically If we lose Anzac Day, and Ed and Pert react by backing their man in and extend Bucks contract to take away the pressure and speculation.... when they put the proposal up.... Who on this board is going to lead the the nay sayers?
Nobody. It's a rubber stamp board.