The Hydra ~ Caro rears her head again

[slangman]

I'm not sure why there's a perception the Board is/was bad. You can see significant positive activity over recent years.

- Reliant upon pokie revenue - moved out of pokies.
- Had governance issues - recruited board members with expertise in governance.
- There were community perceptions of unresolved racist issues - recruited Sizer to the board, initiated the RAP, commissioned the Do Better review.

By all the other metrics the club is doing fine.

People were angry over the 2020 trade period and needed to vent. Blamed the board for Football Department decisions and the outcomes they wrought.

Or maybe supporters are angry that the board was asleep at the wheel while the footy department was blowing the salary cap to pieces with the effects to be felt much longer than just sacking people.
As for governance, isn’t this the board that appointed somebody who was ineligible?

[Jezza]

Or maybe supporters are angry that the board was asleep at the wheel while the footy department was blowing the salary cap to pieces with the effects to be felt much longer than just sacking people.

Were they asleep though?

I've heard other stories suggesting they knew the salary cap would reach a tipping point, but the prospect of potentially winning a flag in 2018/19 was too good to pass up so they took a calculated risk but it didn't come off as intended.

Had we won a flag in that period, the fallout of the salary cap drama would have diminished I suspect.

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

Or maybe supporters are angry that the board was asleep at the wheel while the footy department was blowing the salary cap to pieces with the effects to be felt much longer than just sacking people.

Were they asleep though?

I've heard other stories suggesting they knew the salary cap would reach a tipping point, but the prospect of potentially winning a flag in 2018/19 was too good to pass up so they took a calculated risk but it didn't come off as intended.

Had we won a flag in that period, the fallout of the salary cap drama would have diminished I suspect.

I come back to what McRae said though. Players play, coaches coach and admin administers. Decisions about salary cap are made by the football department and ratified by the board. It's one thing that the football department overshot the spending on the salary cap, but it's another if the board put pressure on the football department to award salary packages to players it knew weren't sustainable. Acting in the belief that because we were in a premiership window doesn't make it excusable. You have other clubs in the same situation as us. They didn't overspend their salary cap. The football department paid the price for that. There's no one left. But really the entire football board should have gone at the same time if there is any inkling that they tried to influence the football department to overpay players they knew the club couldn't afford (or even if they turned a blind eye to the salary cap payments).

[jackcass]

Or maybe supporters are angry that the board was asleep at the wheel while the footy department was blowing the salary cap to pieces with the effects to be felt much longer than just sacking people.

Were they asleep though?

I've heard other stories suggesting they knew the salary cap would reach a tipping point, but the prospect of potentially winning a flag in 2018/19 was too good to pass up so they took a calculated risk but it didn't come off as intended.

Had we won a flag in that period, the fallout of the salary cap drama would have diminished I suspect.

I come back to what McRae said though. Players play, coaches coach and admin administers. Decisions about salary cap are made by the football department and ratified by the board. It's one thing that the football department overshot the spending on the salary cap, but it's another if the board put pressure on the football department to award salary packages to players it knew weren't sustainable. Acting in the belief that because we were in a premiership window doesn't make it excusable. You have other clubs in the same situation as us. They didn't overspend their salary cap. The football department paid the price for that. There's no one left. But really the entire football board should have gone at the same time if there is any inkling that they tried to influence the football department to overpay players they knew the club couldn't afford (or even if they turned a blind eye to the salary cap payments).

Yet again, a lot of smoke and mirrors behind the window. Club tried really hard to trade both Treloar and Phillips in 2019. Neither agreed. Tends to suggest that they knew exactly how tight the TPP was. Tipping point was the 9% (approx $1.2m) COVID decrease imposed by the AFL when the club would have been hanging out for the 2% TPP growth specified in the EBA. Risk - reward. If the club had hung on in 2018 for a flag or gone 1 better in 2019 nobody would have given a rats arse about 2020 trade outcomes.

[Charlie Oneeye]

Yeah, the noisiest supporters who refuse to acknowledge this were the noisiest ones who used to say we should focus on Premierships and not memberships/money/mates/management/coaching/housing/women's footy/other sports/and anything else I've missed! lol

[slangman]

Were they asleep though?

I've heard other stories suggesting they knew the salary cap would reach a tipping point, but the prospect of potentially winning a flag in 2018/19 was too good to pass up so they took a calculated risk but it didn't come off as intended.

Had we won a flag in that period, the fallout of the salary cap drama would have diminished I suspect.

I come back to what McRae said though. Players play, coaches coach and admin administers. Decisions about salary cap are made by the football department and ratified by the board. It's one thing that the football department overshot the spending on the salary cap, but it's another if the board put pressure on the football department to award salary packages to players it knew weren't sustainable. Acting in the belief that because we were in a premiership window doesn't make it excusable. You have other clubs in the same situation as us. They didn't overspend their salary cap. The football department paid the price for that. There's no one left. But really the entire football board should have gone at the same time if there is any inkling that they tried to influence the football department to overpay players they knew the club couldn't afford (or even if they turned a blind eye to the salary cap payments).

Yet again, a lot of smoke and mirrors behind the window. Club tried really hard to trade both Treloar and Phillips in 2019. Neither agreed. Tends to suggest that they knew exactly how tight the TPP was. Tipping point was the 9% (approx $1.2m) COVID decrease imposed by the AFL when the club would have been hanging out for the 2% TPP growth specified in the EBA. Risk - reward. If the club had hung on in 2018 for a flag or gone 1 better in 2019 nobody would have given a rats arse about 2020 trade outcomes.

If the club was aware of the looming salary disaster, why did they sign Grundy on a 7 year deal on big coin?
Too much deflection and excuses from the footy dept and the board regarding this whole debacle.
The boards job is to make sure that the club (footy dept) doesn’t go ballistic and make decisions that will take years to overcome.
I suspect that Jeff Browne is pointing the finger directly at Korda for allowing the salary cap issues to snowball to where they are now.
I don’t know which board member, if any, where appointed to oversee the footy dept finances but from a few things that i have read and Browne's targeting of Korda specifically lends me to think that Korda might have been responsible for the state of the salary cap in a capacity more than just being a board member.

[jackcass]

Not sure I can offer you anything. When your opening claim suggests a "looming salary disaster" or "Grundy on a 7 year deal on big coin", you've already made up your mind.

[slangman]

Not sure I can offer you anything. When your opening claim suggests a "looming salary disaster" or "Grundy on a 7 year deal on big coin", you've already made up your mind.

My opening claim is a fact of what happened. Last years trade period and numerous comments by former staff, board members and GW all point to the fact that this didn’t come as some kind of surprise.

The footy dept where driving at 100kmh towards a cliff in an effort to win a premiership and the board did nothing to stop the calamity that ensued.
That is as irresponsible as corporate governance can get.

[Charlie Oneeye]

Not sure I can offer you anything. When your opening claim suggests a "looming salary disaster" or "Grundy on a 7 year deal on big coin", you've already made up your mind.

My opening claim is a fact of what happened. Last years trade period and numerous comments by former staff, board members and GW all point to the fact that this didn’t come as some kind of surprise.

The footy dept where driving at 100kmh towards a cliff in an effort to win a premiership and the board did nothing to stop the calamity that ensued.
That is as irresponsible as corporate governance can get.

Congratulations to the board for trying to strive towards a premiership.

Seriously, The board is like a pair of underpants. Think about it!

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

Not sure I can offer you anything. When your opening claim suggests a "looming salary disaster" or "Grundy on a 7 year deal on big coin", you've already made up your mind.

My opening claim is a fact of what happened. Last years trade period and numerous comments by former staff, board members and GW all point to the fact that this didn’t come as some kind of surprise.

The footy dept where driving at 100kmh towards a cliff in an effort to win a premiership and the board did nothing to stop the calamity that ensued.
That is as irresponsible as corporate governance can get.

Congratulations to the board for trying to strive towards a premiership.

Seriously, The board is like a pair of underpants. Think about it!

You’re entirely missing the point. You make a sweeping judgement that all members want is a premiership and are willing to give the board carte blanche to do anything to achieve it. And when it all goes belly up through the incompetence of the board, members aren’t entitled to complain because the board was only doing what the members are wanting it to do (and a board the members haven’t been able to vote on in over 20 years). What misguided logic.

[jackcass]

Not sure I can offer you anything. When your opening claim suggests a "looming salary disaster" or "Grundy on a 7 year deal on big coin", you've already made up your mind.

My opening claim is a fact of what happened. Last years trade period and numerous comments by former staff, board members and GW all point to the fact that this didn’t come as some kind of surprise.

The footy dept where driving at 100kmh towards a cliff in an effort to win a premiership and the board did nothing to stop the calamity that ensued.
That is as irresponsible as corporate governance can get.

Nah, not fact, just opinion.

[RudeBoy]

I'm sure that all of our current board members are well meaning people, trying to do their best for Collingwood. Nevertheless, there have been a number of demonstrative failures of governance, for which the whole Board needs to accept responsibility. They were:

1. The salary cap fiasco, resulting in the unceremonious sackings (as they didn't want to leave, that's what it was) of loyal senior players.

2. The attempt to blame Treloar's departure on his partner's netball career, and then to suggest the players did not like him. This was a disgrace.

3. The ignoring of claims of racism for far too long, followed by the attempt to bury the 'Do Better' report was unforgiveable, given our club's sorry record in this area.

4. The appointment of a non-Collingwood supporter to our board, who was then found to be ineligible to vote as she had not even been a member for the required period.

5. The appointment of another board member, who was found to be ineligible as he was an MCC, NOT a Collingwood social club member.

Now that we have a new coach and Wrighty seems to be doing such a great job as head of footy, some people seem to think we should just ignore the above list of failures of proper governance.

We now have a situation where a powerful businessman has demanded he become our President, and has carefully maneuvered himself into the position, in all likelihood without having to present a platform or face an election.

It seems that some people are fine with all of this. That's their right. I'm just not one of them.

[jackcass]

I'm sure that all of our current board members are well meaning people, trying to do their best for Collingwood. Nevertheless, there have been a number of demonstrative failures of governance, for which the whole Board needs to accept responsibility. They were:

1. The salary cap fiasco, resulting in the unceremonious sackings (as they didn't want to leave, that's what it was) of loyal senior players.

2. The attempt to blame Treloar's departure on his partner's netball career, and then to suggest the players did not like him. This was a disgrace.

3. The ignoring of claims of racism for far too long, followed by the attempt to bury the 'Do Better' report was unforgiveable, given our club's sorry record in this area.

4. The appointment of a non-Collingwood supporter to our board, who was then found to be ineligible to vote as she had not even been a member for the required period.

5. The appointment of another board member, who was found to be ineligible as he was an MCC, NOT a Collingwood social club member.

Now that we have a new coach and Wrighty seems to be doing such a great job as head of footy, some people seem to think we should just ignore the above list of failures of proper governance.

We now have a situation where a powerful businessman has demanded he become our President, and has carefully maneuvered himself into the position, in all likelihood without having to present a platform or face an election.

It seems that some people are fine with all of this. That's their right. I'm just not one of them.

I think you missed COVID-19 of the boards list of sins.

[slangman]

Not sure I can offer you anything. When your opening claim suggests a "looming salary disaster" or "Grundy on a 7 year deal on big coin", you've already made up your mind.

My opening claim is a fact of what happened. Last years trade period and numerous comments by former staff, board members and GW all point to the fact that this didn’t come as some kind of surprise.

The footy dept where driving at 100kmh towards a cliff in an effort to win a premiership and the board did nothing to stop the calamity that ensued.
That is as irresponsible as corporate governance can get.

Nah, not fact, just opinion.

Get out from under your rock and have a look around and then explain which part of the salary cap issues is just my opinion.

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

I'm sure that all of our current board members are well meaning people, trying to do their best for Collingwood. Nevertheless, there have been a number of demonstrative failures of governance, for which the whole Board needs to accept responsibility. They were:

1. The salary cap fiasco, resulting in the unceremonious sackings (as they didn't want to leave, that's what it was) of loyal senior players.

2. The attempt to blame Treloar's departure on his partner's netball career, and then to suggest the players did not like him. This was a disgrace.

3. The ignoring of claims of racism for far too long, followed by the attempt to bury the 'Do Better' report was unforgiveable, given our club's sorry record in this area.

4. The appointment of a non-Collingwood supporter to our board, who was then found to be ineligible to vote as she had not even been a member for the required period.

5. The appointment of another board member, who was found to be ineligible as he was an MCC, NOT a Collingwood social club member.

Now that we have a new coach and Wrighty seems to be doing such a great job as head of footy, some people seem to think we should just ignore the above list of failures of proper governance.

We now have a situation where a powerful businessman has demanded he become our President, and has carefully maneuvered himself into the position, in all likelihood without having to present a platform or face an election.

It seems that some people are fine with all of this. That's their right. I'm just not one of them.

Thank you. Very well said.