The Footy Community's obsession with "the truth"

[Brown Bottle]

Surely we all understand that Footy is now a business? The Directors of a Business are charged with doing what is in the best interests of their shareholders. In the broader community people change their employment en masse every day. Some choose to do so because they're better off somewhere else, some are pushed out because it's in their employer's best interests.

Yet there is so much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands when someone does something unexpected in Footy. Mick Malthouse and Ross Lyon are untrustworthy because they dare to consider offers from a prospective employer. Players like Boak and Cloke fail to sign a new contract straight away and suddenly they're mercenaries.

I understand and appreciate the concept of loyalty, and that fans love a single club player like Pav or Richo. What I don't understand is why players, coaches and clubs shouldn't be free to do what's in their best interests, just like the rest of us, and why they need to disclose their thinking and decisions with everyone in the Footy community. So have at it... why are you owed the truth?

 

[Zgope1]

Surely we all understand that Footy is now a business? The Directors of a Business are charged with doing what is in the best interests of their shareholders. In the broader community people change their employment en masse every day. Some choose to do so because they're better off somewhere else, some are pushed out because it's in their employer's best interests.

Yet there is so much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands when someone does something unexpected in Footy. Mick Malthouse and Ross Lyon are untrustworthy because they dare to consider offers from a prospective employer. Players like Boak and Cloke fail to sign a new contract straight away and suddenly they're mercenaries.

I understand and appreciate the concept of loyalty, and that fans love a single club player like Pav or Richo. What I don't understand is why players, coaches and clubs shouldn't be free to do what's in their best interests, just like the rest of us, and why they need to disclose their thinking and decisions with everyone in the Footy community. So have at it... why are you owed the truth?

Public Relations - relatively important in the business world.

 

[Handsuper47]

inb4youcanthandlethetruth

 

[Brown Bottle]

Public Relations - relatively important in the business world.

I'm not aware of a single firm, anywhere in the world, whose PR model is full disclosure to the general public.

 

[Chewy]

"The Truth"

 

[Zgope1]

I'm not aware of a single firm, anywhere in the world, whose PR model is full disclosure to the general public.

I don't recall saying that there is.
The way some things are handled at footy clubs upsets people. Some of that negatively affects PR.

 

[Brown Bottle]

"The Truth"

I think we're still waiting for the truth about Budwood aren't we?

 

[Brown Bottle]

I don't recall saying that there is.
The way some things are handled at footy clubs upsets people. Some of that negatively affects PR.

Sure. We elect a Board to make decisions on our behalf. Every decision taken by the Board has the potential to be divisive, hence they have a PR department to convince us that things aren't as bad as we think they are.

 

[PoopingHindi]

most of this "the fans have a right to know" crap is media driven. gives them something to fill all those tv/radio hours and column inches.
the people i know couldnt give two shits about all that trivial garbage

 

[rayven]

If you pay someones wages, you have a right to know whats been done with them. At the very least you deserve to be assured the money you pay when you go to the football is being used appropriately.

 

[Brown Bottle]

If you pay someones wages, you have a right to know whats been done with them. At the very least you deserve to be assured the money you pay when you go to the football is being used appropriately.

Absolutely right. That's if you're that person's employer of course, as opposed to some antiquated notion like "I pay that policeman's wages with my taxes, so I'm entitled to tell him that he's doing a shit job!".

 

[STFU Donnie]

I'm not aware of a single firm, anywhere in the world, whose PR model is full disclosure to the general public.

Not to the general public perhaps, but you are required to be honest and open with your shareholders. In a very real sense people who purchase memberships are investing in their clubs. On that level can you understand why some Carlton members are unhappy with how Ratten was treated?

 

[Freo2012]

AFL is a professional sport - thus aiming at expansion and $ foremost behind any policies and decisions made - fairness and an even competition only comes into it as far as trying to appear to be. The problem is the AFL is going overboard with no "logic" or "moral" controls and thus becoming more like the WWE every year. It is doing it in small steps but don't doubt it will become an WWE type sport.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

People need to watch more John Ford films, basically.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Not to the general public perhaps, but you are required to be honest and open with your shareholders. In a very real sense people who purchase memberships are investing in their clubs. On that level can you understand why some Carlton members are unhappy with how Ratten was treated?

Sure. Some Tigers fans aren't going to be happy if Richmond offers Luke McGuane a new contract. We all have opinions about what's fair and decent. But like I said, every decision taken by the Board of a Club (or Company for that matter) has the potential to be divisive. If you don't like the decisions being made by your Board then as shareholders you can replace them. They don't have a duty to inform you about everything that happens.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Sure. Some Tigers fans aren't going to be happy if Richmond offers Luke McGuane a new contract. We all have opinions about what's fair and decent. But like I said, every decision taken by the Board of a Club (or Company for that matter) has the potential to be divisive. If you don't like the decisions being made by your Board then as shareholders you can replace them. They don't have a duty to inform you about everything that happens.

Actually, they do. They are required to report on factors that can directly influence the share price.

 

[Fire]

Football clubs aren't for-profit businesses you make out. They are non-profit organisations. There are no shareholders; the board is directly accountable to their members. Who want the truth.

That's why they are owed it, and that's why your analogy is completely invalid.

 

[CF]

Truth fears no questions.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Football clubs aren't for-profit businesses you make out. They are non-profit organisations. There are no shareholders; the board is directly accountable to their members. Who want the truth.

That's why they are owed it, and that's why your analogy is completely invalid.

As a paid-up club member I must have missed out on a redistribution of profits. When did that occur?

Why did Collingwood declare a profit of $1m+ in 2010, and why does their Balance Sheet (@2010) reflect Retained Earnings of $8m+?

As a matter of interest at what point do you believe disclosure to the members should occur, by the way? Should Carlton have informed its members that it had spoken to Mick Malthouse whenever that first conversation occurred? "CFC Press Release: Mick Malthouse confirms his interest in coaching the Carlton Football Club in 2013". Hmmmm.... the members are informed, but Carlton's negotiating position is weakened considerably and any competitive advantage is conceded. Are the Coaching staff likely to see this as a positive? Will it erode the playing groups confidence in the coaching staff? Sounds like good business practice to me.

 

[JCore]

 

[DerpWerls]

JCore damn you beat me to it

 

[thejester]

Yet there is so much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands when someone does something unexpected in Footy. Mick Malthouse and Ross Lyon are untrustworthy because they dare to consider offers from a prospective employer. Players like Boak and Cloke fail to sign a new contract straight away and suddenly they're mercenaries.

You realise these aren't mutually exclusive, right? Mick Malthouse and Ross Lyon acted in their best interests - that doesn't mean they're not untrustworthy (at least Lyon is). A mercenary is also, by definition, someone who puts a paycheck above loyalty - so someone who moves to a different club for a bigger paycheck is, by definition, a mercenary.

Frankly, the whole 'it's a business' line, with it's implication that ideas like loyalty are irrational, is stupid anyway. Footy exists because you and I make an irrational, emotional choice to follow a single team.

 

[The Dodger]

Surely we all understand that Footy is now a business? The Directors of a Business are charged with doing what is in the best interests of their shareholders. In the broader community people change their employment en masse every day. Some choose to do so because they're better off somewhere else, some are pushed out because it's in their employer's best interests.

Yet there is so much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands when someone does something unexpected in Footy. Mick Malthouse and Ross Lyon are untrustworthy because they dare to consider offers from a prospective employer. Players like Boak and Cloke fail to sign a new contract straight away and suddenly they're mercenaries.

I understand and appreciate the concept of loyalty, and that fans love a single club player like Pav or Richo. What I don't understand is why players, coaches and clubs shouldn't be free to do what's in their best interests, just like the rest of us, and why they need to disclose their thinking and decisions with everyone in the Footy community. So have at it... why are you owed the truth?

IMO the game is fan driven. Fans dont go to games or switch on the telly or buy newspapers or magazines then footy players dont get to shop around for their bigger salaries do they?
People idolise players, pay money just to go and see them ply their trade, bother to watch interviews with them & buy merchandise with their no. on the back. Then they get up and leave because they want more money. It happens and that is understandable but I don't think anyone can besmirch the fans for wanting to know why someone has left.

 

[Brown Bottle]

You realise these aren't mutually exclusive, right? Mick Malthouse and Ross Lyon acted in their best interests - that doesn't mean they're not untrustworthy (at least Lyon is). A mercenary is also, by definition, someone who puts a paycheck above loyalty - so someone who moves to a different club for a bigger paycheck is, by definition, a mercenary.

Why is Lyon untrustworthy?

Frankly, the whole 'it's a business' line, with it's implication that ideas like loyalty are irrational, is stupid anyway. Footy exists because you and I make an irrational, emotional choice to follow a single team.

So you don't believe that clubs act in the best interests of their shareholders (members)? The decision to delist players at the end of each season is no different to going through a process of range rationalization as a manufacturer. Where is the loyalty to these delisted players?

 

[Brown Bottle]

IMO the game is fan driven. Fans dont go to games or switch on the telly or buy newspapers or magazines then footy players dont get to shop around for their bigger salaries do they?
People idolise players, pay money just to go and see them ply their trade, bother to watch interviews with them & buy merchandise with their no. on the back. Then they get up and leave because they want more money. It happens and that is understandable but I don't think anyone can besmirch the fans for wanting to know why someone has left.

Inevitably you get one. Money talks.