Toast Presidency and The Board

[jathanas]

Thank you 76woodenspooners

One of BigFooty’s all-time-favourite posters, Reykjavik , was all across the board level stuff. He once posted a list of the responsibilities of a Not-For-Profit board like that of Collingwood …

abcdef.....ijklmnop

NFP board responsibilities
Specific responsibilities of a not-for-profit (NFP) board include:

• Driving the strategic direction of the organisation
• Working with the CEO to enable the organisation to obtain the resources, funds and personnel necessary to implement the organisation's strategic objectives
• Implementing, maintaining and (as necessary) refining a system of good governance that is appropriate for the organisation
• Reviewing reports and monitoring the performance of the organisation
• Regularly reviewing the board's structure and composition, so that these are appropriate for the organisation
• Appointing – and managing the performance of – a suitable CEO
• Succession planning for the CEO

While the above points are also applicable to for-profit boards, NFP boards also face a unique range of issues, such as:

• Difficulties in defining and measuring organisational effectiveness
• Transgression of role boundaries
• The negative impact of the structural compositions of some NFP boards, including those arising from representative models
• Funding dependencies and constraints

In practice, the role of the board is to supervise an organisation's business in two broad areas:

1. Overall business performance - ensuring the organisation develops and implements strategies and supporting policies to enable it to fulfill the objectives set out in the organisation's constitution. The board delegates the day to day management of the organisation but remains accountable to the shareholders for the organisation's performance. The board monitors and supports management in an on-going way.
2. Overall compliance performance - ensuring the organisation develops and implements systems to enable it to comply with its legal and policy obligations (complying with statutes such as the Corporations Act 2001, adhering to accounting standards) and ensure the organisation's assets are protected through appropriate risk management.

http://www.companydirectors.com.au/...ctor/NFP-governance/The-role-of-the-NFP-board

Link to original post …

Side by Side with Reykjavik - RIP (re-read Rey's message to us all #108, pg 5)

Reyk, I'm ridiculously happy to see you posting! :)

www.bigfooty.com

 

[NMBB]

The last time there was a stoush at Board level involving a Galbally was 1963? when Jack Galbally (Francis' uncle) stood against Tom Sherrin. Sherrin won - there was a view that Jack Galbally would have made an excellent president at that time. The players at the time got involved and backed Sherrin. The rest is history.

 

[Spuddd]

The last time there was a stoush at Board level involving a Galbally was 1963? when Jack Galbally (Francis' uncle) stood against Tom Sherrin. Sherrin won - there was a view that Jack Galbally would have made an excellent president at that time. The players at the time got involved and backed Sherrin. The rest is history.

Other than having a family tie - what does this have to do with the current situation?

You're right in saying that its history, its exactly that, has very little bearing on the current situation at play - in fact it dilutes the current predicted challenge as rather than a detailed plan, a group tied to the past is trying to say 'told you so'...

 

[76woodenspooners]

What about the votes of those who don't normally attend AGM's?

Yeah, they’re the ones I’m worried about.

IIRC we have around 16000 eligible members, of which around 300 give up a Tuesday evening in the darkest depths of the off season to solemnly go through the motions of approving the minutes of the last meeting, etc, etc, applauding loudly at whoever is up on stage to receive their life membership, asking their one question, singing the song, then enjoying their free beers and a chit chat.

I’d imagine an EGM would be a merry circus by comparison.

 

[MyManLynch]

The last time there was a stoush at Board level involving a Galbally was 1963? when Jack Galbally (Francis' uncle) stood against Tom Sherrin. Sherrin won - there was a view that Jack Galbally would have made an excellent president at that time. The players at the time got involved and backed Sherrin. The rest is history.

I guess in 1963 the voting members would have been a few hundred only.
Not many Social Club Members back then.
Once you have the players on side…that’s probably half the votes…

 

[76woodenspooners]

The joker in the pack in all of this is Ed.

I’d imagine this whole thing could be sorted out by Ed intervening publicly “For the good of Collingwood what should happen is …”

He’d cop an awful amount of blowback for it (whichever side he took) but it would probably set the wheels in motion for bringing about a swift resolution.

 

[NMBB]

I guess in 1963 the voting members would have been a few hundred only.
Not many Social Club Members back then.
Once you have the players on side…that’s probably half the votes…

Think social club / voting members at the time enjoyed a beer and thought Sherrin was a good bloke because he made footies.

 

[MyManLynch]

Yeah, they’re the ones I’m worried about.

IIRC we have around 16000 eligible members, of which around 300 give up a Tuesday evening in the darkest depths of the off season to solemnly go through the motions of approving the minutes of the last meeting, etc, etc, applauding loudly at whoever is up on stage to receive their life membership, asking their one question, singing the song, then enjoying their free beers and a chit chat.

I’d imagine an EGM would be a merry circus by comparison.

Probably a big chunk of Legends Members didn’t join to have the right to vote at AGM’s.
They joined to secure reserved seats & priority finals tickets etc.
Now they find themselves with a vote for the future of the Club.
Will they all vote?
Can we hold an EGM or AGM & cater for 16,000 voting Members?
I would assume that some form of electronic online voting would occur.
How secure is this?
Donald Trump come on down!

 

[Apples]

The joker in the pack in all of this is Ed.

I’d imagine this whole thing could be sorted out by Ed intervening publicly “For the good of Collingwood what should happen is …”

He’d cop an awful amount of blowback for it (whichever side he took) but it would probably set the wheels in motion for bringing about a swift resolution.

Ed has said many, many times, that he doesn't want to make comments. He realises he has too much power and rightly understands that anything he said would be construed as interference.

The petition group has every right legally, to ask for a list of members who are eligible to vote. The board has missed every deadline offered up. Francis Galbally now takes it further. How embarrassing. A board ducking and weaving, trying to suppress an open and transparent process.

I'm disgusted. If the board is united in this obfuscation then they all deserve to be bundled out.

 

[sideswipe]

Think social club / voting members at the time enjoyed a beer and thought Sherrin was a good bloke because he made footies.

Might have been a bit more to it than that. Galbally and a couple of others had only recently provided personal guarantees to facilitate a loan to re-build the social club. If it was just about the beers, reckon the guarantor might have deserved a few more votes!

I read somewhere that there may have been rumblings about The Floreat - our first coterie group of which Galbally was a member - having too much influence. Sherrin used this to his advantage - won 1740 to Galbally's 834.

 

[barrackers]

The last time there was a stoush at Board level involving a Galbally was 1963? when Jack Galbally (Francis' uncle) stood against Tom Sherrin. Sherrin won - there was a view that Jack Galbally would have made an excellent president at that time. The players at the time got involved and backed Sherrin. The rest is history.

1982. Seems to be a roughly 20 year cycle. Was there anything around McGuire's early years to complete the trend?

David Galbally was on the board from 1974 to '82, quit and joined the new magpies board challenge. He served a further year on the board under MacDonald.

The Age - Google News Archive Search

 

[NMBB]

David Galbally was on the board from 1974 to '82, quit and joined the new magpies board challenge. He served a further year on the board under MacDonald.

The Age - Google News Archive Search

I knew David ( Francis' brother) had been on the Board - didn't regard that as a "stoush" - wouldn't be surprised if David and Francis have had a chat about Collingwood and its various Boards.

 

[HFF]

That process would take around 3 months to get resolved. Are you cool with us putting coach selection on hold for that period of time while we wait around for an EGM to happen?

Are you cool with the current board deliberately dragging this out in the full knowledge that we need to appoint a coach?
They are using this as their tool and its a slap in the face to all the members and fans of the club.

 

[barrackers]

I knew David ( Francis' brother) had been on the Board - didn't regard that as a "stoush" - wouldn't be surprised if David and Francis have had a chat about Collingwood and its various Boards.

If the new magpies wasn't a stoush this one isn't either. The article I linked even has similar concerns about delaying/avoiding an EGM in favour of an AGM.

David was critical of McGuire and a need to overhaul the board late last year, so I suspect you're right about he and Francis chatting.

 

[MyManLynch]

Ed has said many, many times, that he doesn't want to make comments. He realises he has too much power and rightly understands that anything he said would be construed as interference.

The petition group has every right legally, to ask for a list of members who are eligible to vote. The board has missed every deadline offered up. Francis Galbally now takes it further. How embarrassing. A board ducking and weaving, trying to suppress an open and transparent process.

I'm disgusted. If the board is united in this obfuscation then they all deserve to be bundled out.

Why don’t they simply lodge the petition with the Club for independent verification?
Then the issue can be settled.
The Board are not ducking & weaving.
I don’t trust Browne & Galbally with their tactics.
Lodge the petition & put this to bed.

 

[NMBB]

Might have been a bit more to it than that. Galbally and a couple of others had only recently provided personal guarantees to facilitate a loan to re-build the social club. If it was just about the beers, reckon the guarantor might have deserved a few more votes!

I read somewhere that there may have been rumblings about The Floreat - our first coterie group of which Galbally was a member - having too much influence. Sherrin used this to his advantage - won 1740 to Galbally's 834.

Reported to me by an attendee at one meeting or the election night itself that Ray Gabelich and Murray Weideman were in attendance and enjoyed > a few ales.

 

[NMBB]

If the new magpies wasn't a stoush this one isn't either. The article I linked even has similar concerns about delaying/avoiding an EGM in favour of an AGM.

David was critical of McGuire and a need to overhaul the board late last year, so I suspect you're right about he and Francis chatting.

Ok - New Magpies was a stoush - I attended the meeting at the Masonic place in East Melbourne.

 

[Scodog10]

Here's some questions to ponder:

• Did the group backing the EGM ask members/supporters signing the petition whether they were eligible to sign the document?
• Did they ask them to show evidence (i.e. a membership card) demonstrating they were eligible?
• Were they accepting anyone's signatures?

I don't know what the legal outcome will be here, but the organisers of this have done themselves no favours. They're "in the shadows" because apart from David Hatley and Vic Nicholas, I don't know anything about the other people instigating this and what their true intentions are. They just expect us to trust them blindly?

In relation to Korda and co, that legacy you speak of stems from the failings of Eddie McGuire who exploited the casual vacancy provision of our Constitution.

Further to this significant change has taken place since the signatures were gathered. At the time Hately was doing that legwork I would have signed, but there’s no way I’d sign now. I’m not super impressed by Korda and Co the thing is they aren’t faceless like Jeff Browne and… What course of action do people that initially signed and have since had a change of heart have if the club hands their details over to other parties?

 

[jackcass]

Are you cool with the current board deliberately dragging this out in the full knowledge that we need to appoint a coach?
They are using this as their tool and its a slap in the face to all the members and fans of the club.

They're not dragging anything out and they'll appoint a coach as soon as the process identifies who that should be and their current status allows.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I'm disgusted. If the board is united in this obfuscation then they all deserve to be bundled out.

What are your thoughts about the EGM mob and Browne professing to be completely independent of each other, that the EGM mob are apolitical and just want democracy restored to Collingwood, and that Browne is just waiting around and seeing what happens with them …

… nek minit it turns out that Frances Galbally is acting as legal representative for both of them?!?

FWIW, I’m not too enamored of Korda’s bluster in his press releases either.

None of this is good for the club …

Ed has said many, many times, that he doesn't want to make comments. He realises he has too much power and rightly understands that anything he said would be construed as interference.

Indeed. My point is that he could choose to “interfere” if he wanted to. It’s Ed we’re talking about here, he’s got form when it comes to sticking his nose in stuff.

In this case he has chosen not to. You and I both seem to agree that it would damage his reputation if he did - and maybe he thinks it’s just not worth it. Or maybe he thinks it’s not in Collingwood’s interests to interfere. Or maybe he’s planning to interfere at a strategic time?

Let’s see, it’s interesting times!

The petition group has every right legally, to ask for a list of members who are eligible to vote. The board has missed every deadline offered up. Francis Galbally now takes it further. How embarrassing. A board ducking and weaving, trying to suppress an open and transparent process.

The current management have also offered their own perfectly legal and transparent process that is consistent with the corporations act.

What makes you support one side, and label the other side as “embarrassing”?

 

[HFF]

They're not dragging anything out and they'll appoint a coach as soon as the process identifies who that should be and their current status allows.

It was in reference to the EGM....which they are clearly dragging out

 

[MyManLynch]

It was in reference to the EGM....which they are clearly dragging out

Who is holding the petition?
Lodge it with the Club…forward we move.
Its actually quite simple.

 

[Apples]

Why don’t they simply lodge the petition with the Club for independent verification?
Then the issue can be settled.
The Board are not ducking & weaving.
I don’t trust Browne & Galbally with their tactics.
Lodge the petition & put this to bed.

The Board is ducking and weaving. Obviously the petition group does not trust the Board. The process required is quite clear. The Board is stalling and playing for time and it is very embarrassing.

 

[MyManLynch]

The Board is ducking and weaving. Obviously the petition group does not trust the Board. The process required is quite clear. The Board is stalling and playing for time and it is very embarrassing.

Lodge the petition.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Are you cool with the current board deliberately dragging this out in the full knowledge that we need to appoint a coach?

Why didn’t the EGM folks do what they said they were going to do, and present the signatures to the cliub six weeks ago for independent verification?

It’s not the current board who are dragging this out.

 

[barrackers]

Indeed. My point is that he could choose to “interfere” if he wanted to. It’s Ed we’re talking about here, he’s got form when it comes to sticking his nose in stuff.

In this case he has chosen not to. You and I both seem to agree that it would damage his reputation if he did - and maybe he thinks it’s just not worth it. Or maybe he thinks it’s not in Collingwood’s interests not to interfere. Or maybe he’s planning to interfere at a strategic time?

Let’s see, it’s interesting times!

I sense there’s some divided loyalty for McGuire who’s worked closely with Browne and Korda for long periods.