Melbourne Board Review released

[titan_uranus 24,984]

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-07-31/melbourne-board-review-released

The review led by John Trotter has been finished and the executive summary is available on the above website to view.

Makes for interesting reading.

[old dee 23,784]

From that I deduce a number of things but the very clear one for me is the AFL is our administrator.

Not news but is clear that they are approving every move we make.

I am happy with that.

Roll on Mr. AFL and Mr Jackson we are in your hands.

If you cannot save us no one will.

[Maldonboy38 6,395]

The opening point of the executive document says it all really:

1. Overall Board Performance

In assessing the performance of the Board, it was clear that the Board has added significant value to the MFC

over the last five years, and until 2013 had produced four years of profit, acquired significant assets and grown

the MFC revenues. However, due to both poor on-field performance and current financial performance, the

Board recognises it has lost the confidence of the members, key stakeholders and the AFL.

I haven't read much more, but will post stuff I find noteworthy.

[beelzebub 23,313]

Without trying to be cynical or such there was nothing really world shatteringly landmark about that summary. I think a few of us here could have assembled all that just by observing whats taken place.

I have no doubt though the really interesting stuff is in the report proper.

Its all a process. Sad that any of its required tbh. Thanks John

[Maldonboy38 6,395]

I find the following part brings the most clarity for me. Basically, it is saying that the people who joined the Board under Jimmy and Don had some leadership ability but were more managers than leaders, and little ide about Corporate Governance or Business structures. I have summarised it down a bit. Bold type is my emphasis.

QUOTE:

2. Board Effectiveness

A number of Board members joined the Board in mid 2008 when the MFC had limited management skills,

lacked resources and had significant debt. This resulted in a blurring of roles of the Board and management, as

Board members were immersed in “running the club” and eliminating the debt.

Findings:

The review indicated that the effectiveness of the Board was being impacted by the:

I. lack of clarity of the roles and responsibilities of the Board and management;

II. issues around the strength of the working relationship with key management;

III. depth of experience of Board members with Corporate Governance frameworks, structures and processes;

IV. use and mix of skills of individual Board members;

V. time availability of certain Board members;

VI. clarity of Board member roles; and

VII.the depth of relationships with key stakeholders

Recommendations:

I. To improve the effectiveness of the Board, the current MFC Governance framework, structures and

processes need to be revisited and, where practicable, brought up to corporate best practice standards,

recognising the specific requirements of the MFC;

II. The Board Nominations Committee, in determining the composition of the Board, should ensure that

there are a number of Board members who are experienced in businesses that have working Corporate

Governance frameworks; and

III. As the Governance structures and processes are being updated and the strategic priorities of the club are

being reassessed, it is recommended that:

a. All current Board members are re-inducted through the revamped Board Induction program;

b. All new Board members complete induction within two months of joining the Board; and

c. At least one Board meeting per year has a session to refresh Board members on the key aspects of the

induction program.

[deanox 9,905]

Everyone should read the executive summary that is linked.

It is very clear that the AFL are going to support us both financially and otherwise (attracting key personnel) of we give then a board they want.

It was good that the is focused on keeping the board and ceo separate. I thought that report was too heavily focused on the need to satisfy the afl for public consumption however reading between the lines makes it clear that a non afl sanctioned board could see the end of us.

[Maldonboy38 6,395]

One last highlight - a quote about the AFL:

QUOTE:

The AFL has offered support to address these issues, but this support is highly conditional.

In this context, the implementation of the recommendations contained in this report should be seen as critical to:

• satisfying the conditions of the AFL;

• regaining the confidence of members, stakeholders; and

• providing a stable environment that is essential in attracting key Football Department personnel, and

retaining players.

It is clear that over the next 6 - 12 months, the AFL will say jump and we will say "how high?". I know this sucks but considering the dysfunction of our previous Boards(s) it is probably essential.

Anyone with half a brain about corporate governance structures can see that this report is a politically correct statement that is actually saying our Board were hopeless. No news there I suppose.

[old dee 23,784]

One last highlight - a quote about the AFL:

QUOTE:

The AFL has offered support to address these issues, but this support is highly conditional.

In this context, the implementation of the recommendations contained in this report should be seen as critical to:

• satisfying the conditions of the AFL;

• regaining the confidence of members, stakeholders; and

• providing a stable environment that is essential in attracting key Football Department personnel, and

retaining players.

It is clear that over the next 6 - 12 months, the AFL will say jump and we will say "how high?". I know this sucks but considering the dysfunction of our previous Boards(s) it is probably essential.

Anyone with half a brain about corporate governance structures can see that this report is a politically correct statement that is actually saying our Board were hopeless. No news there I suppose.

There is no other choice it is that or the end of the MFC.

Take it or leave it IMO

[beelzebub 23,313]

good job we're not in administration

[rjay 24,902]

I find the following part brings the most clarity for me. Basically, it is saying that the people who joined the Board under Jimmy and Don had some leadership ability but were more managers than leaders, and little ide about Corporate Governance or Business structures. I have summarised it down a bit. Bold type is my emphasis.

QUOTE:

2. Board Effectiveness

A number of Board members joined the Board in mid 2008 when the MFC had limited management skills,

lacked resources and had significant debt. This resulted in a blurring of roles of the Board and management, as

Board members were immersed in “running the club” and eliminating the debt.

Findings:

The review indicated that the effectiveness of the Board was being impacted by the:

I. lack of clarity of the roles and responsibilities of the Board and management;

II. issues around the strength of the working relationship with key management;

III. depth of experience of Board members with Corporate Governance frameworks, structures and processes;

IV. use and mix of skills of individual Board members;

V. time availability of certain Board members;

VI. clarity of Board member roles; and

VII.the depth of relationships with key stakeholders

So the question is, why was the previous CEO's (CS) tenure extended twice? and are there any still on the board that supported his extension?

...if so please go now.

Looks like it was a free for all at the MFC.

[beelzebub 23,313]

Reading between lines as far as the notion of Board does board, management does management...( and I mean whod'da thunk that !! ) what thats alluding to is a murky grapple for influence, possibly/probably where not warranted AND\/OR the necessity of Board members to ride rough shot over some who would want to impose their will/desire where not required.

We were quite dysfunctional werent we. Obviously in recent times the board has to have usurped their otherwise misguided brethren in order to get things somewhere other than derailed.

[TheoX 1,222]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-31/demons-review-reveals-issues-at-board-level

"Melbourne president Peter Jackson" under the photo, gotta love the AFL website.

[Little Richard 6,262]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-31/demons-review-reveals-issues-at-board-level "Melbourne president Peter Jackson" under the photo, gotta love the AFL website.

Was it them that wrote up the scout report on 'Fitzgerald' instead of Fitzpatrick which was unearthed recently?

[whatwhat say what 22,727]

Pretty damning.

[Nasher 33,613]

The idea of the Board reviewing its own performance is ridiculous, and shows in the executive summary. I particularly liked this bit:

The effort, commitment and contribution of the current Board and individual Board members over this period is recognised. However, as MFC revenues have grown significantly over the last five years and a number of people have been appointed to manage the MFC, it is critical that the Board now assume the role of a Board and let management manage

Jeez, thank goodness we had you guys there to manage us, since the CEO you hired and then extended couldn't. It was critical that the Board acted as a Board and let management manage in 2008, it isn't a new thing now.

[daisycutter 29,606]

it's an executive summary nasher for public consumption

the full real report will never be public

and we will never really know if it was snow job or what

[old dee 23,784]

it's an executive summary nasher for public consumption

the full real report will never be public

and we will never really know if it was snow job or what

Surely you are not suggesting dc that MFC people would not be telling us the whole truth!

I am shocked.

[beelzebub 23,313]

Surely you are not suggesting dc that MFC people would not be telling us the whole truth!

I am shocked.

Im sick...just flabbergasted !! i dont get it, theyve always been so up front. thoroughly professional !!

( Im sure the many are, and genuine.....but )

[chookrat 4,247]

Was it them that wrote up the scout report on 'Fitzgerald' instead of Fitzpatrick which was unearthed recently?

I prefer Fitzgerald, he should change his name

[Soidee 1,496]

As a humble paid up supporter of my beloved football club I [censored] in the general direction of all those including Schwab who have brought this club to its knees. Now [censored] off and never show your sorry faces at this club again.

[old dee 23,784]

As a humble paid up supporter of my beloved football club I [censored] in the general direction of all those including Schwab who have brought this club to its knees. Now [censored] off and never show your sorry faces at this club again.

Greg Denham was not far off the mark when he said we were being run by a rum bunch.

[rjay 24,902]

Greg Denham was not far off the mark when he said we were being run by a rum bunch.

Unfortunately he was pretty right.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Report hints at some basic fundemental corporate governance failings that have been evident in the circus that MFC have been for the past 5 years. IMO the summary is soft touch.

But I am not sure about the crucial conflicts surrounding the report:

1. The performance of the Board was initiated and overseen by the Board.

2. It was co ordinated by one of the Board who is subject to the review findings.

3. This Board member is a recently retired Chairman of the accounting firm that did the report.

Wonderful back scratching.

I would have preferred a more independent review without risk of conflict in the such a critical area.

I wonder if the full report will address the wisdom of making loans to Chief Executive Officers.

[rpfc 28,306]

Back scratching?

That usually doesn't involve drawing blood...

It's ridiculous to have a board report on itself but from what I read in that summary they were after a time dysfunctional micro managers who were not aware if where their role ended and the admins started.

Added to the fact that the report is a vehicle for the AFL to install the best group of Demons in their eyes and I don't really care about the independent-ness of the report.

[timD 994]

Back scratching?

That usually doesn't involve drawing blood...

It's ridiculous to have a board report on itself but from what I read in that summary they were after a time dysfunctional micro managers who were not aware if where their role ended and the admins started.

Added to the fact that the report is a vehicle for the AFL to install the best group of Demons in their eyes and I don't really care about the independent-ness of the report.

What?

You don't care about the independence of a report into a board that oversaw a shocking decline in performance, a series of debacles and leading the mfc to being a laughing stock of the competition.

Seriously?

Jim's board has had far too much of the 'soft touch'. This forum is happy to sink the boots into the Gardner board and when given far more reasons and evidence cannot bring themselves to apply the same vitriol to our dear incumbents.

I give up.