The Hydra ~ Caro rears her head again

[jackcass]

Bit like telling the suffragettes to let the men vote on whether women should be allowed to vote or not]

Isn’t that what happened?

No, it is not. If you really don’t know, look it up

Just like we didn’t get the 40 hour week, holidays, paid sick leave etc. because the factory owners decided they wanted to improve the lot of workers

Yeah, I’m pretty confident that it was an all male parliament in SA that initiated it here in Oz, male parliaments elsewhere voting to allow it.

[jackcass]

How would the club be improved if every mug punter got a vote? How does our club compare with others?

That's the rhetorical equivalent of scoring for the opponent from outside 50m on the wrong foot against the boundary while carrying a knee injury.

We are a no-go zone for serious athletes and their parents. A destination of last resort that struggles to recruit anyone decent outside father-sons because we have a reputation for tainting player prospects both within football and outside football. Who in their right mind would encourage their star athlete son to go to a maligned club after a decade of driving him around the country at the expense of other career options? Not to mention decent mature trade options would rather take a major pay hit than come anywhere near us.

The patient is near-dead and whoever inflicted this upon the club by administering it into a footballing talent wasteland that is forced to pay cap-busting overs is responsible. And that includes the members who voted accordingly, and whose record of failure as voters speaks for itself.

Don't worry about the great unwashed; decaying road kill couldn't possibly run the club down any further than its present pitiful state. Worry about those who had responsibility and examine why they failed so monumentally. It's a sunk cost now, though; there's simply nothing to defend at this level of fail, and nothing but a full administration cleanout and accompanying shake up of the voter gene pool will suffice.

We've gone from needing stability two decades ago, to a painfully drawn out decade of managed decline. Neither will do in the present, and nor will yet more denial of the sort that let Eddie and Bucks linger five years too long. But what we can do right now is clear the decks for the new coach to give him a decent shot at rebuilding our reputation from the ground up.

Was merely asking the question but gees you need to take a bex. Most of that is just crap.

[jackcass]

What nonsense from Barrie Cassidy.

I joined the social club in 1990. In those days, you had to be recommended by a current social club member, seconded, and undergo an interview.
That made you a "member".

Before that I was a "season ticket holder" and later became a "season ticket holder with reserved seats".
It was crystal clear back then that season ticket holders were not members.

Anyone could buy a Season Ticket, but you couldn't just pay to become a Member.

At some point a Collingwood "member" versus what the AFL calls club members got blurred. Collingwood should have always made the distinction between a member and season ticket holder crystal clear and they havent.
Even this years membership site doesnt state what is a full member with voting rights.

But Barrie Cassidy saying he did not know he was not a member 37 years ago ... nonsense.

For new member night.... Bob Rose came up to me, shook my hand and said welcome to the club. This goes further back than Mr Cassidy.

Then the AFL came along, and there was talk about expanding voting options, but at the time, whilst the details are gone, nothing elitist, nothing conspiratorial, nothing demonic.

The value of benefits that constitutes being a member was being watered down. I recall it went around and resolved that it would remain broadly as it is today.


If it needs review, let's do it.. But let's not invent false narratives

Yep, this.

[jackcass]

I think the view that Collingwood is nearly dead as a club is greatly exaggerated by people who may have hidden agendas, are silly enough to believe everything they hear or get high on putting Collingwood down at every opportunity. I am old enough to remember Collingwood supposedly being 20 minutes away from financial ruin that would have killed the club in the 80’s but we survived. We even had an urgent SOS (save our side) fundraiser that I contributed to. We survived. I do not believe doomsayers or panic merchants who are usually reactive rather than being proactive.
We will surprise many with our survival skills on show over the next 2 seasons, including some Collingwood supporters who have expectations of a very bleak future for the next few years. Patience will bring high rewards.

Well said Laz.

[jackcass]

^^Those people wouldn’t necessarily vote just because they had the right to. It’s not mandatory like state and federal elections. I’m not even sure if there is a mail-in vote or you have to attend the AGM in person

Wonder why this mess never happened under Ed.

Because there weren’t any elections. Only unopposed nominations by the existing board (read: Ed)

And you wonder why they don’t let everyone vote

No, I wonder why they don’t let more people vote than the current 15% of people whom the club terms members. Generally speaking, attempts to limit the number of people who can or will vote are designed to hold on to power

LOL. A few disgruntled supporters started a petition this year to initiate an EGM to force a full spill of the board. Push came to shove they folded like a cheap suit. Don’t see how allowing more members to vote would have changed that, or will/would change the outcome at the pending AGM.

[WhyPhilWhy?]

If I recall correctly, one of the reasons back in the day for separate "subscribers" and actual member classes was to prevent some rich dude from simply buying a big swag of memberships and therefore buying their way on to the board and the presidency.

Given the price, its much harder to buy that sort of influence these days, so its worth reviewing what level should represent voting membership.

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

I think the view that Collingwood is nearly dead as a club is greatly exaggerated by people who may have hidden agendas, are silly enough to believe everything they hear or get high on putting Collingwood down at every opportunity. I am old enough to remember Collingwood supposedly being 20 minutes away from financial ruin that would have killed the club in the 80’s but we survived. We even had an urgent SOS (save our side) fundraiser that I contributed to. We survived. I do not believe doomsayers or panic merchants who are usually reactive rather than being proactive.
We will surprise many with our survival skills on show over the next 2 seasons, including some Collingwood supporters who have expectations of a very bleak future for the next few years. Patience will bring high rewards.

You entirely miss the point I was making about Collingwood memberships. Nowhere did I say I was a doomsayer or that I don't think the club has a future. I said if Collingwood continues to promote itself as an exclusive club with elitist policies to exclude the majority of it's membership base from voting at AGM's then it will decline as a force in the AFL (paraphrasing what I said). I'm confident that won't happen. If you think it's desirable that only 12,500 out of a membership base of 82,000 members are allowed to vote in the upcoming AGM then you I have different interpretations of how this club should operate. I would have thought someone like Barrie Cassidy who's been a member of this club for 37 years might have got a bit more sympathy from Nicks. Apparently not. Think about it for a moment. Three game members and home game members buy memberships not for a good deal, but because they love the club and want to give something back. They could more easily just go on the day and buy a ticket from Ticketek and end up with a better seat on the wings and pay about the same money. And as for the free Collingwood cap and scarf they get each year, this is just free advertising for the Collingwood Football Club every time the supporter wears their paraphernalia. Not everybody can afford a Legends 5 membership like you. But don't stop there. Compare the archaic rules for an ordinary member with voting rights at the Collingwood Football Club to that of the other 17 AFL clubs. Nowhere can I find a more restrictive set of rules for voting rights than any of the other clubs and I've been reading the constitutions of a number of other AFL clubs lately. The most annoying thing is that when a Collingwood member complains about the situation at the club, all the others who are happy with their plight seem to want to do is brand them as liars, doomsayers and agitators. So much for united we stand. Collingwood members eating their own. Little wonder this club has won so few premierships in the last 50 years.

[pietillidie]

How would the club be improved if every mug punter got a vote? How does our club compare with others?

That's the rhetorical equivalent of scoring for the opponent from outside 50m on the wrong foot against the boundary while carrying a knee injury.

We are a no-go zone for serious athletes and their parents. A destination of last resort that struggles to recruit anyone decent outside father-sons because we have a reputation for tainting player prospects both within football and outside football. Who in their right mind would encourage their star athlete son to go to a maligned club after a decade of driving him around the country at the expense of other career options? Not to mention decent mature trade options would rather take a major pay hit than come anywhere near us.

The patient is near-dead and whoever inflicted this upon the club by administering it into a footballing talent wasteland that is forced to pay cap-busting overs is responsible. And that includes the members who voted accordingly, and whose record of failure as voters speaks for itself.

Don't worry about the great unwashed; decaying road kill couldn't possibly run the club down any further than its present pitiful state. Worry about those who had responsibility and examine why they failed so monumentally. It's a sunk cost now, though; there's simply nothing to defend at this level of fail, and nothing but a full administration cleanout and accompanying shake up of the voter gene pool will suffice.

We've gone from needing stability two decades ago, to a painfully drawn out decade of managed decline. Neither will do in the present, and nor will yet more denial of the sort that let Eddie and Bucks linger five years too long. But what we can do right now is clear the decks for the new coach to give him a decent shot at rebuilding our reputation from the ground up.

Was merely asking the question but gees you need to take a bex. Most of that is just crap.

Your questions were far more pertinent than you imagined. We are a footballing wasteland and a talent no-go zone; that's precisely how we compare to other clubs. Someone is responsible for this. It wasn't caused by the phases of the moon or some mystery event that only targeted our club. The obvious place to look is those who had responsibility and those who voted for them. It's not rocket science.

In any case, the most important thing is this: now is the right time to clean things out. In the 00s we were too unstable and needed to steady the ship. In the 10s we became so fearful of falling into Punt Rd instability that we let Eddie and Bucks linger 4-5 years too long, while Punt Rd overtook us. But right now is a natural point for a complete overhaul post-Eddie and Bucks. It's the right thing to do at the right time.

Lots of things ought to be up for grabs right now, from every board seat to voting rights. Not next year; and hopefully not in five years. But now is the time to visit everything and set a direction that genuinely changes the club and its culture, which is miles behind the game. It can be hard to admit something you love and players you will to success are miles behind the game, but it happens. That doesn't mean all hope is lost, especially with players like young Daics in the wings.

Of course, comprehensive change means not only cleaning out old names at board level, but making sure Browne is not more of the same, as others rightly fear. One way to do this is to force him to justify himself at depth and in detail. One of the great failures of the past was that we engaged in puerile media histrionics, scandal and cover-up rather than frank and adult communication. Looking at the other clubs makes it clear that it takes serious maturity and gravitas to communicate at the level required. Is Browne up to the task and can he build an organisation to underwrite it? Or, is he just another self-aggrandising CV padder?

[Lazza]

Is Browne up to the task and can he build an organisation to underwrite it? Or, is he just another self-serving CV padder?

Don’t honestly know but the only way to find out is for him to be voted in.

[WhyPhilWhy?]

If he is a padder, that's pretty impressive damn padding I'd have to say.

[Rd10.1998_11.1#36]

Yeah, I’m pretty confident that it was an all male parliament in SA that initiated it here in Oz.

That was in 1895. The term suffragette wasn’t coined until 1906. So when I speak of Suffragettes, I’m talking particularly about the movement in the UK, who chained themselves to railings, went on hunger strikes, ran in front of race horses and even committed arson to draw attention to their cause. It took until 1928 for universal suffrage to be passed by the all-male UK parliament, at least 63 years after it had become a political issue.

Thais is not to downplay the work of the Women’s suffrage movement in Australia but rather to say that, as the suffragette motto went, sometimes “Deeds not not words” are required to enact change. Asking politely doesn’t always get the result.

The more people that vote the more viewpoints and issues have to be canvassed and addressed and some people would rather just appeal to voters they consider like-minded and do a bit of back-scratching, which is at least partly what got us where we are as a footy club today IMHO.

[Rd10.1998_11.1#36]

LOL. A few disgruntled supporters started a petition this year to initiate an EGM to force a full spill of the board. Push came to shove they folded like a cheap suit.

That’s one way of looking at it. Another is that the petition and the ensuing publicity was the catalyst that led the forthcoming board changes - whether they be for better or worse.

Don’t see how allowing more members to vote would have changed that, or will/would change the outcome at the pending AGM.

I don’t have a crystal ball but I don’t see why only having 15% of members able to vote is a good thing, or why re-examine that and potentially expanding the number of voters is a bad thing. The world didn’t collapse in a heap when women got the vote either. Well not immediately anyway.

[pietillidie]

If he is a padder, that's pretty impressive $$%^%%$ padding I'd have to say.

Well, Jeff Browne's CV is not even in the same universe as that of someone who has built an ultra-competitive international public company like a Mike Cannon-Brookes, so let's keep perspective. If organisation building, transparency and public leadership are among your criteria, it's very hard to tell on Browne due to a lack of information (which itself might worry head hunters for a highly public community leadership role like this). From being Eddie's best mate, spending years at 9, being closely associated with the AFL, fraternising with all the usual society names and coming to us as a near-retirement gig, there are also plenty of red flags worth looking into.

Just how ruthlessly committed to the cause is someone that entwined in football, the media and the society pages really going to be? Are they going to put all that on the line for the CFC when push comes to shove, or are they merely going to wear the CFC as a cap feather at cocktail parties as they seek deals that in the end must always maintain their face and standing in those circles? Is this really a bloke who will put the CFC above his own goodwill in and debt to that fraternity? Is he really going to make waves and enemies as need be, or even discomfort himself for the CFC?

Be careful when you look at CVs. Candidacy is entirely relative to (a) the very best out there (I mention Cannon-Brookes merely to provide scale, not because I think he might be available!), and (b) the requirements of the role. I'm also getting a very strong smell of boy's club cologne, which is certainly not on my checklist for the position. Maybe in the end that has to be, but it's worth thinking through carefully.

[WhyPhilWhy?]

You are correct, but then Mike Cannon-Brookes has nothing on Barrack Obama and he's not doing anything currently either, so we can all set our scales according to our argument. Neither did Cannon-Brookes nominate for the board, so the point is moot.

I'm not seeking to endorse Jeff Browne either. I mean, dammit - I've not heard anything from any of the candidates.

But of all the candidates running, Browne has undeniable experience in dealing with the AFL, media companies and the financial contracts of larger than life personalities.

[Rd10.1998_11.1#36]

We shouldn’t want our president to be involved with contract negotiations

Can’t say I’m enthused about Browne for all the reasons that have been mentioned, but in lieu of an alternative, hoping for the best