Oppo Camp Other Clubs News/General Discussion

[Mollythedolly]

So what, they're his beliefs. No one has to adhere to them

He didn't have to resign, he chose to. If he'd had the courage of his religious convictions he would have stayed and endure the oncoming circus that would have erupted. It's clearly not his fault his religious beliefs, particularly those around abortion and diversity, are so abhorrent to many. The board didn't see them as an issue when they appointed him so they'd have obviously supported him.

All jokes aside, his appointment is a clear conflict of interest within a league that promotes diversity and inclusivity. Can only imagine how women feel about his (and his churches) views on abortion. You only need to look at the protests following the US abortion law changes to realise the passion already there for the cause.

 

[sideswipe]

He didn't have to resign, he chose to. If he'd had the courage of his religious convictions he would have stayed and endure the oncoming circus that would have erupted. It's clearly not his fault his religious beliefs, particularly those around abortion and diversity, are so abhorrent to many. The board didn't see them as an issue when they appointed him so they'd have obviously supported him.

All jokes aside, his appointment is a clear conflict of interest within a league that promotes diversity and inclusivity. Can only imagine how women feel about his (and his churches) views on abortion. You only need to look at the protests following the US abortion law changes to realise the passion already there for the cause.

Utter nonsense. Barham clearly stated that he gave Thorburn an ultimatum to choose between his role at Essendon and his role at his church.

 

[Maggie5]

He didn't have to resign, he chose to.

Is certainly a mess however he was actually given a choice between CEO of Essendon or his Church. He chose his Church.

IMO Essendon have handled this badly, firstly by a poor due diligence (prior to appointing him) then secondly the agreed termination.

Whilst Thorburn was working at NAB, they sponsored AFL extensively so his beliefs didn't affect that.

Maybe he could have handled both and not influence any decision making regarding abortion or homosexuality (or anything else) at the club and abide with the Club's values.

Extremists from both sides of this will have a field day.

 

[Jafo]

View attachment trim.AF851B1E-2339-4F66-99BE-BB6D09E8FE42.MOV

 

[Couch Coach]

 

[eyeroller]

 

[Mollythedolly]

Utter nonsense. Barham clearly stated that he gave Thorburn an ultimatum to choose between his role at Essendon and his role at his church.

Is certainly a mess however he was actually given a choice between CEO of Essendon or his Church. He chose his Church.

IMO Essendon have handled this badly, firstly by a poor due diligence (prior to appointing him) then secondly the agreed termination.

Whilst Thorburn was working at NAB, they sponsored AFL extensively so his beliefs didn't affect that.

Maybe he could have handled both and not influence any decision making regarding abortion or homosexuality (or anything else) at the club and abide with the Club's values.

Extremists from both sides of this will have a field day.

Thanks. I’m glad we agree he had a choice so therefore didn’t have to resign. He didn’t even have to leave his church AFAIK, just the role he had within the church.

 

[sideswipe]

Thanks. I’m glad we agree he had a choice so therefore didn’t have to resign. He didn’t even have to leave his church, just the role he had within the church.

As simplistic as your abortion comments(of which there is no evidence of the views that Thorburn personally holds).

 

[Doc1763]

Thanks. I’m glad we agree he had a choice so therefore didn’t have to resign. He didn’t even have to leave his church AFAIK, just the role he had within the church.

Yes, my understanding is that he couldn't continue in his roles at that reprehensible organisation and the crackpot religion at the same time.

 

[Mollythedolly]

As simplistic as your abortion comments(of which there is no evidence of the views that Thorburn personally holds).

Just a simple thank for correcting the error of the claim would suffice.

Happy for you to point me to where he’s stated his views on abortion are contrary to those of his church and that as CEO he’s working to shift the churches views. I’ll happily recant when you post the link.

 

[sideswipe]

Just a simple thank for correcting the error of your claim would suffice.

Happy for you to point me to where he’s stated his views on abortion are contrary to those of his church and that as CEO he’s working to shift the churches views. I’ll happily recant when you post the link.

Why don't you do that for yourself? And why should he have to do that? Whilst you are at it, make sure to check on the Anglican view of such matters - given Thorburn's group is attached to them.

That sermon sounded appalling but I am not sure Thorburn's church holds a fundamentally different stance on abortion to that generally held across mainstream religion?

So we better buy more pitchforks.

 

[60 Yards Out]

He didn't have to resign, he chose to. If he'd had the courage of his religious convictions he would have stayed and endure the oncoming circus that would have erupted. It's clearly not his fault his religious beliefs, particularly those around abortion and diversity, are so abhorrent to many. The board didn't see them as an issue when they appointed him so they'd have obviously supported him.

All jokes aside, his appointment is a clear conflict of interest within a league that promotes diversity and inclusivity. Can only imagine how women feel about his (and his churches) views on abortion. You only need to look at the protests following the US abortion law changes to realise the passion already there for the cause.

Someone needs to set out a coherent position for why a person with specific religious or social views can’t simultaneously be CEO of a football club.
No one has up to this point. The proposition that “it’s bad for the brand” is lazy and superficial. The proposition that (in this case) gay or transsexual employees might not feel safe at work is laughable — it assumes all sorts of things about both them and the CEO, none of which might be true.
All that is required is that all parties separate their private beliefs from the public discharge of their job responsibilities.
You can test the position Barham has taken by reversing the perspectives. What if he had hired a CEO who turned out to be gay, and some straight employees claimed they didn’t feel safe around that person, and therefore the person was terminated? That flavour of intolerance wouldn’t be tolerated or encouraged.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Why don't you do that for yourself? And why should he have to do that? Whilst you are at it, make sure to check on the Anglican view of such matters - given Thorburn's group is attached to them.

That sermon sounded appalling but I am not sure Thorburn's church holds a fundamentally different stance on abortion to that generally held across mainstream religion?

So we better buy more pitchforks.

I see where you’ve gone wrong, you’ve mistaken me for someone who gives a **** about Thorburn, his opinion, churches, or what you think. Don’t hurt yourself dismounting that high horse.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Someone needs to set out a coherent position for why a person with specific religious or social views can’t simultaneously be CEO of a football club.
No one has up to this point. The proposition that “it’s bad for the brand” is lazy and superficial. The proposition that (in this case) gay or transsexual employees might not feel safe at work is laughable — it assumes all sorts of things about both them and the CEO, none of which might be true.
All that is required is that all parties separate their private beliefs from the public discharge of their job responsibilities.
You can test the position Barham has taken by reversing the perspectives. What if he had hired a CEO who turned out to be gay, and some straight employees claimed they didn’t feel safe around that person, and therefore the person was terminated? That flavour of intolerance wouldn’t be tolerated or encouraged.

I was happy for him to stay as CEO of Essendon. Would have enjoyed the circus that unfolded.

 

[sideswipe]

I see where you’ve gone wrong, you’ve mistaken me for someone who gives a * about Thorburn, his opinion, churches, or what you think. Don’t hurt yourself dismounting that high horse.

Pretty weak finish Molly. Try harder.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Pretty weak finish Molly. Try harder.

I stated he didn't have to resign, you came at me calling that "utter nonsense", reality.... he didn't have to resign.

You subsequently throw a little tanty, shifting the goal posts all willy nilly rather than show some good grace and just acknowledge you were wrong, yet somehow, I'm offering a weak finish. Go figure. I'll leave it there because as I've previously stated, it's not a subject I'm overly interested in exploring.

 

[sideswipe]

I stated he didn't have to resign, you came at me calling that "utter nonsense", reality.... he didn't have to resign.

You subsequently throw a little tanty, shifting the goal posts all willy nilly rather than show some good grace and just acknowledge you were wrong, yet somehow, I'm offering a weak finish. Go figure. I'll leave it there because as I've previously stated, it's not a subject I'm overly interested in exploring.

OK Mol - I like it when you say wrong. When it's wrong.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Just a simple thank for correcting the error of your claim would suffice.

Happy for you to point me to where he’s stated his views on abortion are contrary to those of his church and that as CEO he’s working to shift the churches views. I’ll happily recant when you post the link.

Agreed, if you're chairman of an organisation you represent their views, it ain't rocket science

He's also pretty good at collecting fees off dead people, maybe that's why he's against abortion, you can't die if you were never born

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Someone needs to set out a coherent position for why a person with specific religious or social views can’t simultaneously be CEO of a football club.
No one has up to this point. The proposition that “it’s bad for the brand” is lazy and superficial. The proposition that (in this case) gay or transsexual employees might not feel safe at work is laughable — it assumes all sorts of things about both them and the CEO, none of which might be true.
All that is required is that all parties separate their private beliefs from the public discharge of their job responsibilities.
You can test the position Barham has taken by reversing the perspectives. What if he had hired a CEO who turned out to be gay, and some straight employees claimed they didn’t feel safe around that person, and therefore the person was terminated? That flavour of intolerance wouldn’t be tolerated or encouraged.

The coherent position is cold hard $$$

Good luck keeping sponsors when you've got a bloke like that as CEO

 

[Black_White]

As simplistic as your abortion comments(of which there is no evidence of the views that Thorburn personally holds).

He doesn’t have to personally hold those views.
But as CEO of the church he has to accept them our publicly dismiss them.
As his silence has been golden on the issue one has to decide that he accepts them.
And that’s contrary to everything the AFL has been up front about for over a decade. So he has no place in the AFL.
We must also acknowledge that his faith believes in life after death. Is this why the NAB under his stewardship charged dead people bank fees?
The royal commission cited him. That should be enough to exclude him from any CEO job anywhere.

 

[60 Yards Out]

The coherent position is cold hard $$$

Good luck keeping sponsors when you've got a bloke like that as CEO

I don’t think it’s likely that sponsors would have walked away. More likely, if concerned, they would have sought assurances about his approach to the job, received them, and stayed put.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

I don’t think it’s likely that sponsors would have walked away. More likely, if concerned, they would have sought assurances about his approach to the job, received them, and stayed put.

That's not how it works these days! Those sponsors would have been subjected to vicious campaigns until they could take no more because it ends up affecting the bottom line

Capitalism always wins, that's why he's gone

 

[noideaatall]

Ĺ

It shouldn't have been his affiliation with a regressive church, that set the alarm bells ringing. As CEO of NAB, he was forced to resign over the bank's 'charging' $650 million in fees for no service. They even charged dead customers. In Thorburn's evidence to the Royal Commission he took no responsibility and was so discredited by the presiding commissioner (ex High Court Judge, Ken Hayne), that he resigned the day after the findings were tabled. That is why he should never have been given the job at Essendon. That's why he has had no job for the last four years. He then recommended himself for the Essendon CEO position. Nice work if you can get it!

This is what President Barham failed to consider. A simple Google search would have alerted him to this matter. Obviously nobody on the Essendon Board reads newspapers or takes any interest in the findings of Royal Commissions.

In his resignation media release, he said he was a man of integrity and high standards. Millions of Australians would beg to differ.

I grew up in the same fundamentalist small Christian group that Andrew did in Melbourne. Our parents were good friends, we hung out a fair amount through childhood and teenage years. He was a good kid. Full of energy and personality, loads of confidence. He seemed to be less aware of other people's perception of him but that might have been my perception, my hang ups. We lost contact when I left the group in my late teens. I am not a fan; I have what some might call leftist morals and am not a fan of the trend for this self-perpetuating cycle of executives awarding themselves disproportionately. My memory of Andrew is he was fairly open minded and progressive so surprised he is now with another Christian group, by appearances somewhat more open than what we grew up with but not much further down the road.

Anyway, I would suggest he believes (and those around him) he is a man of integrity and high standards - his and those he associates with. The fact is we don't all share the same values, as to what integrity and high standards are all about. As an side I will chuck in that our club has had questions of the integrity of our board members raised by high authorities in the past. This is where AFL is at, led and maybe controlled by people who most of us would not share the same idea of integrity with. Nothing new though, John Elliott comes to mind.

Whatever, Andrew's church isn't that radical. Not happy with abortion or homosexuality? Let's ask the pope about that and a heap of other Christian/any belief you name about that. What exactly is the problem? That he is chairman? So are any office bearers in the Catholic Church going to be booted on the basis of the Popes values? Are we going to boot Muslim office bearers too? Jewish? Don't get me wrong, personally I have no time for faith built on the foundation of some brain dead bloke in the sky, nor one built on some living blokes interpretation. I wonder though, if the reaction to Andrew is actually connected to deeper politics, in particular a deep seated anger with his past as an executive fatcat?

 

[Capital Magpie]

Utter nonsense. Barham clearly stated that he gave Thorburn an ultimatum to choose between his role at Essendon and his role at his church.

Correct, the news item I heard said Barham gave him an ultimatum. One would think that Thorburn would have a solid case against Essendon for constructive dismissal at Fair Work.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Is certainly a mess however he was actually given a choice between CEO of Essendon or his Church. He chose his Church.

To be precise “…his role as chair of his Church”.