Opinion Non-Crows AFL 6: This Is Getting Cruel

[tinman]

His mistake was resigning.

Should’ve told them to go f*ck themselves.

Resigning does make his case more difficult but he'll claim "constructive dismissal" - that he was really given no other choice.

Media statements from the Essendon president shortly afterwards support this. Without looking them up they were along the lines of "Once we knew about his views we took firm action".

That doesn't sound like someone jumping voluntarily, and I thought at the time that media statements like this were extremely unwise.

 

[Crow till I die]

That’s just wrong. And frankly, the sort of wrong you should be better than.

The law around this is not grey

Will any forthcoming settlement have to come out of Essendon's soft cap?

 

[Crow till I die]

I’ve been advised by our lawyers in the past to unfairly dismiss senior executives. The maximum award was less than the hassle. Just write the cheque and move on

Discrimination isn’t limited though

The idea of holding someone to account for what another person said, years earlier is for the birds. It’s obviously wrong

smells awfully similar to the Reinhardt scenario just last month

 

[Crow till I die]

So old mate stated his views were not aligned with those of the church. But was still provided the ultimatum to quit being chair of the church or he couldn’t continue as CEO. I’ll admit that I don’t know the extent of this rags degree of far rightedness, it I do trust that they quote reliably.

Andrew Thorburn resigns as Essendon CEO after one day over links to controversial church | Essendon | The Guardian

Essendon says City on a Hill’s values are in ‘direct contradiction’ with its own, as Daniel Andrews labels its views on homosexuality and abortion ‘appalling’

amp.theguardian.com

View attachment 1549450

"Essendon is committed to providing and inclusive, diverse and safe club where EVERYONE IS WELCOME AND RESPECTED"..unless you happen to be a member of a church they don't like and then they are not very welcoming and inclusive

 

[BunjiMC]

I thought he was stood down as CEO for being clinically insane... He believes there is a man living in the sky......

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

"Essendon is committed to providing and inclusive, diverse and safe club where EVERYONE IS WELCOME AND RESPECTED"..unless you happen to be a member of a church they don't like and then they are not very welcoming and inclusive

A CEO with divisive extreme views is hardly going to be inclusive...

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

smells awfully similar to the Reinhardt scenario just last month

How, as it has nothing to do with sponsorship?

These scenarios are nothing alike.

 

[Crow till I die]

A CEO with divisive extreme views is hardly going to be inclusive...

Are those views attributed to him or what someone else in the church once said?

 

[Crow till I die]

How, as it has nothing to do with sponsorship?

These scenarios are nothing alike.

Kane, if your dad, or uncle or best mate etc said something at some time, should i hold you accountable for what they said?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Kane, if your dad, or uncle or best mate etc said something at some time, should i hold you accountable for what they said?

What has this to do with the sacking of thr CEO?

He is the one associated... not his,Dad, Mother, mate or family member.

 

[Crow till I die]

What has this to do with the sacking of thr CEO?

He said what he did... not his,Dad, Mother, mate or family member.

what did he himself say. I have seen what they attribute to the church, but I can't find it..can you link it

Edit:

Football CEO dismissed for religious beliefs

The recently appointed new CEO of the Essendon Football Club in Victoria, Andrew Thorburn, has been pushed out of his job on account of views expressed by the church he belongs to and on whose boar…

lawandreligionaustralia.blog

The next day Mr Thorburn tendered his resignation, but it seems clear that he did so because of pressure from the Board. From the President of the Club:

“As soon as the comments relating to a 2013 sermon from a pastor, at the City on the Hill church came to light this morning, we acted immediately to clarify the publicly espoused views on the organisation’s official website, which are in direct contradiction to our values as a club,” Mr Barham said.
“The board made clear that, despite these not being views that Andrew Thorburn has expressed personally and that were also made prior to him taking up his role as chairman, he couldn’t continue to serve in his dual roles at the Essendon Football Club and as chairman of City on the Hill.”
Australian Financial Review, Oct 4, 2022

 

[1970crow]

Are those views attributed to him or what someone else in the church once said?

Essendon board are on record as accepting those views are not his but forced his resignation nonetheless. They’re pretty well ****ed, but they’d have known this was a likely outcome. They’ll just negotiate a payout and move on. It’s only the usual hand wringers that take this kind of stuff personally.

 

[fortunatecrow]

what did he himself say. I have seen what they attribute to the church, but I can't find it..can you link it

Edit:

Football CEO dismissed for religious beliefs

The recently appointed new CEO of the Essendon Football Club in Victoria, Andrew Thorburn, has been pushed out of his job on account of views expressed by the church he belongs to and on whose boar…

lawandreligionaustralia.blog

The next day Mr Thorburn tendered his resignation, but it seems clear that he did so because of pressure from the Board. From the President of the Club:

Not things he said, the "gotcha" was the views expressed ten years ago by the minister of a church that he chairs.

I worked at NAB. I thought he was a poor CEO but nothing to do with his personal beliefs, which did not intrude into the running of the business at all.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Yet he is no longer CEO.

Couldn't have been a non-issue if he was sacked a day into thr job, yet the so-called experts are here yet again...

 

[1970crow]

Yet he is no longer CEO.

Couldn't have been a non-issue if he was sacked a day into thr job, yet the so-called experts are here yet again...

Some of us have actually kept abreast of the information. Not shooting from the hip having missed key quotes from Essendon chair along with somehow believing that it was the CEO that had expressed those views himself. Yet despite being totally ignorant of all, you wade in with your statements of fact and petty insults. Take a break mate, you’ll feel better for it.

 

[Scorpus]

Did the church denounce the views of this particular member, or was the board all fine with it?

Surely Thorburn would have come out and said "these are not my views or the views of the church I am chairperson of" if it that was the case.

I can only assume since it was a big deal and not his comments that if he didn't share those views he'd be lightning fast to distance himself, and as chair of the church would be denouncing it

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Yet he is no longer CEO...

That is a fact.

I wonder why...

The more people with extreme views are kept away from leadership positions, the better off this world will be.

 

[fortunatecrow]

Did the church denounce the views of this particular member, or was the board all fine with it?

Surely Thorburn would have come out and said "these are not my views or the views of the church I am chairperson of" if it that was the case.

I can only assume since it was a big deal and not his comments that if he didn't share those views he'd be lightning fast to distance himself, and as chair of the church would be denouncing it

The comments were made ten years ago. You would be guessing about whether the current board were even aware of the comments until they were raised by the media. The media reports were that Essendon told him he had to choose between resigning as chair of the church or stepping down as CEO (presumably assuming he would resign as chair). It doesn't look like they gave him the option to make a public statement of disagreement.

 

[Scorpus]

The comments were made ten years ago. You would be guessing about whether the current board were even aware of the comments until they were raised by the media. The media reports were that Essendon told him he had to choose between resigning as chair of the church or stepping down as CEO (presumably assuming he would resign as chair). It doesn't look like they gave him the option to make a public statement of disagreement.

But as soon as they were raised, surely you couldn't distance yourself fast enough and categorically reject it.

Would be as simple as:

"Do you agree with these views shared by a member 10 years ago?"

"Absolutely not. No. These aren't my views or the views of the church."

And if they didn't give him that chance I'd be making a statement as quick as possible at the next possible opportunity

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

But as soon as they were raised, surely you couldn't distance yourself fast enough and categorically reject it.

Would be as simple as:

"Do you agree with these views shared by a member 10 years ago?"

"Absolutely not. No. These aren't my views or the views of the church."

... unless they are his views.

 

[Scorpus]

... unless they are his views.

Of course. But people in this thread are claiming he's being discriminated for the views of someone else so I can only imagine he very quickly corrected the record, which would have been to his benefit against Essendon

 

[Bearded Clam]

Did the church denounce the views of this particular member, or was the board all fine with it?

Surely Thorburn would have come out and said "these are not my views or the views of the church I am chairperson of" if it that was the case.

I can only assume since it was a big deal and not his comments that if he didn't share those views he'd be lightning fast to distance himself, and as chair of the church would be denouncing it

Not sure he has even come out since and publically said he disagrees with the views..

Be the first thing I’d do regardless of the situation… “I dont believe in these outdated and intolerant views even though some in my church probably still do”

Unless of course he agrees with them.

 

[fortunatecrow]

But as soon as they were raised, surely you couldn't distance yourself fast enough and categorically reject it.

Would be as simple as:

"Do you agree with these views shared by a member 10 years ago?"

"Absolutely not. No. These aren't my views or the views of the church."

I agree that if Essendon were smart they would have given him the chance to distance himself from those views. But it looks like they didn't. I'm guessing they assumed that he would step down as Chair to take the CEO role in which case it was problem solved – but he didn't.

 

[1970crow]

Did the church denounce the views of this particular member, or was the board all fine with it?

Surely Thorburn would have come out and said "these are not my views or the views of the church I am chairperson of" if it that was the case.

I can only assume since it was a big deal and not his comments that if he didn't share those views he'd be lightning fast to distance himself, and as chair of the church would be denouncing it

He did that to the only people that matter. It’s mentioned in the guardian article quoting the chairperson. Why does he have to tell you? And why do you care that Essendon transgressed the law and will likely have to pay here? You and your ilk seem to lose all commonsense and are left with nothing but emotion. This is a matter of law, not your personal beliefs.

 

[1970crow]

But as soon as they were raised, surely you couldn't distance yourself fast enough and categorically reject it.

Would be as simple as:

"Do you agree with these views shared by a member 10 years ago?"

"Absolutely not. No. These aren't my views or the views of the church."

And if they didn't give him that chance I'd be making a statement as quick as possible at the next possible opportunity

Jesus dude, read the actual quotes from the Essendon president. He did distance himself from those views.