23 hours ago, Biffen said:

56 years of failure.

Next question.

Well said Biffo!

21 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

The Caro story referencing a group of former players and the board is too much of a coincidence for me.

Green and crew represent some big, truly Melbourne names from a relatively successful time and they carry some sway. 

Fair enough.

I've been relatively consistent on my attitude towards past players being involved in football or administrative operations. I couldn't give a toss if these people played for Melbourne or not. I want the best people running the club, from the most successful environments. 

Being a former Melbourne player does very little for me. And if it is as you say then I'm particularly wary...

1 hour ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

A Caro Wilson article of September, said a group of former players were making calls to find a challenger to Bartlett on the board as they were unhappy with direction of the club.

Fair chance a few of Green's contemporaries were a part of that group and potentially Green's appointment is an olive branch to that group.

 

48 minutes ago, A F said:

Maybe. Though I doubt the board would have appointed him if they had an inkling that his presence would undermine their governance. I also doubt that they would have appointed him to quell external discontent.  

This is almost exactly what I was saying above though.

External group isnt happy with the current board performance. Instead of a divisive, public board challenge, the groups talk it through, and move forward together. Collectively there is now an otherwise unknown view on the board, theoretically making it better and more diverse.

This risk is that its a token appointment, and the original board is just placating them, and gives them no real involvement or input.

If the external group spends 12-24 months on the board and either feels like nothing is improving, then it might run a full challenge. 

If the placating appointment is only given lip service and no real input but dont complain, the board will let then run their course, they obviously dont know what they are taking about. 

16 minutes ago, A F said:

Fair enough.

I've been relatively consistent on my attitude towards past players being involved in football or administrative operations. I couldn't give a toss if these people played for Melbourne or not. I want the best people running the club, from the most successful environments. 

Being a former Melbourne player does very little for me. And if it is as you say then I'm particularly wary...

I agree with you somewhat, but, out of 8 on the board of a Football Club, I don't mind there being someone who has a strong background in Football to provide perspective on football operations and a bit of Heart and Soul of the club doesn't hurt either.

Brendon Gale is probably the most successful administrator in the game at the moment and he falls squarely into your category of "past players being involved in football or administrative operations". His resume did include a stint at the helm of the AFLPA but otherwise largely comprosed his 244 games at the Tigers before taking over as CEO  -  his results are amazing and have truly leveraged the Heart and Soul of that club

Eddie being inappropriate again perhaps....

"Morrison rejected claims from the Collingwood Football Club president, Eddie McGuire, who told news.com.au that Holgate – a Collingwood board member – was the victim of “a pile on” because “hacks” and “dullards” were trying to drag her down"

43 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Eddie being inappropriate again perhaps....

"Morrison rejected claims from the Collingwood Football Club president, Eddie McGuire, who told news.com.au that Holgate – a Collingwood board member – was the victim of “a pile on” because “hacks” and “dullards” were trying to drag her down"

They got $80mil+ worth of bonuses and people are worroed about $20k of watches?

Bringing her down for this is a political stunt. If it was really an issue, the obscene salaries and bonuses wouldn't occur in the first place.

Bur that being said, Eddie is part of those obscene dollars.

 

39 minutes ago, deanox said:

They got $80mil+ worth of bonuses and people are worroed about $20k of watches?

Bringing her down for this is a political stunt. If it was really an issue, the obscene salaries and bonuses wouldn't occur in the first place.

Bur that being said, Eddie is part of those obscene dollars.

 

Treasury and ASIC sat on it for weeks anyway.

I'm still [censored] off Neeld put him in the sub vest after going out as captain for the coin toss.

 

6 hours ago, deanox said:

They got $80mil+ worth of bonuses and people are worroed about $20k of watches?

Bringing her down for this is a political stunt. If it was really an issue, the obscene salaries and bonuses wouldn't occur in the first place.

Bur that being said, Eddie is part of those obscene dollars.

 

Eddie can’t help himself but I guess he’s just defending one of his own.

Politics is a truly sh**ty business as Holgate is now finding out. A few watches is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I’m a capitalist. It’s the best way we know to encourage innovation and create wealth. But jeez I hate the greed that goes along with it.

Any sympathy I have for Holgate dissipates pretty quickly when I see the eye-watering remuneration package she’s on. She’s a greedy elitist like all the rest of that circle of execs who rotate amongst all the top jobs. She’ll pitch up at another top job for sure. She’s be ok.

11 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

Eddie can’t help himself but I guess he’s just defending one of his own.

Politics is a truly sh**ty business as Holgate is now finding out. A few watches is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I’m a capitalist. It’s the best way we know to encourage innovation and create wealth. But jeez I hate the greed that goes along with it.

Any sympathy I have for Holgate dissipates pretty quickly when I see the eye-watering remuneration package she’s on. She’s a greedy elitist like all the rest of that circle of execs who rotate amongst all the top jobs. She’ll pitch up at another top job for sure. She’s be ok.

Mate she's a bargain compared with the Narcissist that occupied the position previously. Wouldn't matter one little bit if it wasn't taxpayers money. They can do what he want with shareholders private funds

6 hours ago, A F said:

Treasury and ASIC sat on it for weeks anyway.

I see the head of ASIC has now had to step aside while his expenses are investigated. Not sure what prompted all this but if I was on the board of a taxpayer funded body or regulator I would be nervously checking my all expense claims right now.

14 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

I see the head of ASIC has now had to step aside while his expenses are investigated. Not sure what prompted all this but if I was on the board of a taxpayer funded body or regulator I would be nervously checking my all expense claims right now.

Public funded, but yes. KPMG involved too. Reckon there are a few rotten apples in there.

34 minutes ago, Kent said:

Mate she's a bargain compared with the Narcissist that occupied the position previously. Wouldn't matter one little bit if it wasn't taxpayers money. They can do what he want with shareholders private funds

If you mean as long as they are making money who cares, then that’s a valid point and many people would agree with you. For me giving Cartier watches to already well remunerated execs is just greed and avarice. I don’t like it. I’d much prefer the posties were given a little extra in their pay packet.

7 minutes ago, A F said:

Public funded, but yes. KPMG involved too. Reckon there are a few rotten apples in there.

Memo to self, must remember to refer to public rather than taxpayer ?

54 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

Eddie can’t help himself but I guess he’s just defending one of his own.

Politics is a truly sh**ty business as Holgate is now finding out. A few watches is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I’m a capitalist. It’s the best way we know to encourage innovation and create wealth. But jeez I hate the greed that goes along with it.

Any sympathy I have for Holgate dissipates pretty quickly when I see the eye-watering remuneration package she’s on. She’s a greedy elitist like all the rest of that circle of execs who rotate amongst all the top jobs. She’ll pitch up at another top job for sure. She’s be ok.

You're referring to neoliberalism and money manager capitalism, very similar to finance capitalism that triggered the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent Great Depression. 

Capitalism can be a very robust vehicle for society, but people often conflate this current neoliberal period (that is highly unstable) with all capitalism. Capitalism comes in many forms.

Since 1983, household savings have distinctly declined and since the late 1970s, real wages have plummeted. Household debt is currently double income after tax (second highest private debt burden in the world). Both major parties have used private debt to run the economy and as we saw in America with the GFC, running an economy on private debt is unsustainable.

Unfortunately, we're on the precipice of a debt crisis in this country. By this time next year, the contraction in the housing market will trigger a financial collapse. This time they need to let it fail, otherwise there'll be no market discipline.

Edited October 23, 20204 yr by A F

Just now, Better days ahead said:

If you mean as long as they are making money who cares, then that’s a valid point and many people would agree with you. For me giving Cartier watches to already well remunerated execs is just greed and avarice. I don’t like it. I’d much prefer the posties were given a little extra in their pay packet.

Aggeed Better! My point being that it is not acceptable behaviour in a government funded organisation that exists in a quasi monopoly

Private companies can do what ever they want!

As it stands with the shrinking of snail mail there is no reason to keep aussi post in government hands They either run the post as apost service or the compete in the parcels business. They pay very little dividend to the government

They are direct competitors with large transport and logistics organisations They really serve no purpose should be sold off immediately

 

4 minutes ago, A F said:

You're referring to neoliberalism and money manager capitalism, very similar to finance capitalism that triggered the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent Great Depression. 

Capitalism can be a very robust vehicle for society, but people often conflate this current neoliberal period (that is highly unstable) with all capitalism. Capitalism comes in many forms.

Since 1983, household savings have distinctly declined and since the late 1970s, real wages have plummeted. Household debt is currently double income after tax (second highest private debt burden in the world). Both major parties have used private debt to run the economy and as we saw in America with the GFC, running an economy on private debt is unsustainable.

Unfortunately, we're on the precipice of a debt crisis in this country. By this time next year, the contraction in the housing market will trigger a financial collapse. This time they need to let it fail, otherwise there'll be no market discipline.

Excellent summary AF

Just now, Kent said:

Aggeed Better! My point being that it is not acceptable behaviour in a government funded organisation that exists in a quasi monopoly

Private companies can do what ever they want!

As it stands with the shrinking of snail mail there is no reason to keep aussi post in government hands They either run the post as apost service or the compete in the parcels business. They pay very little dividend to the government

They are direct competitors with large transport and logistics organisations They really serve no purpose should be sold off immediately

 

This is the classic neoliberal model for privatisation. The same thing is happening at the ABC. Strip funding until things are so useless that people say we may as well privatise them.ĺ

We get worse consumer prices and worse service, with offshoring of local jobs as a triple whammy with privatisation.

Australia Post is effectively semi-privatised already. The stores are franchised and run as private businesses. I hate dealing with them. They're hopeless.

The privatisation of Telstra has been a disaster. Our public money paid for the infrastructure and it was handed to Murdoch to make money, except service plummeted and I don't know a single person on either side of the aisle that thinks Telstra is a remotely competent organisation. 

The privatisation of QANTAS by Keating has seen 25,000 people laid off because their CEO takes home multi million dollar pay cheques and without adequate competition, it's not a market, it's a monopoly. Consumers have no lever on price stability.

You can't expect better service when there's the profit motive, because in the inevitable economic downturn, private firms need to cut costs, which impacts on service and price stability.

Sure, we need a mixed economy, but some sectors should be in government hands and the only reason they're not is due to the failed macroeconomics of the current major parties. The Government is not financially constrained, it's resource constrained.

Government deficits create private wealth and fiscal surpluses strangle private wealth. It's why household savings dipped into recession during Costello's 10 surpluses in 11 years and the mining sector was in recession by 2007, because its debt burden was too great.

Menzies knew the power of fiscal deficits and it's why he championed massive fiscal deficits that allowed the private sector to save. This is no longer the goal, but maybe that's changing. That's the only way we're going to stop a financial collapse.

Thus ends the lecture for today.

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I'm still [censored] off Neeld put him in the sub vest after going out as captain for the coin toss.

 

That was Todd Viney mate.

34 minutes ago, A F said:

You're referring to neoliberalism and money manager capitalism, very similar to finance capitalism that triggered the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent Great Depression. 

Capitalism can be a very robust vehicle for society, but people often conflate this current neoliberal period (that is highly unstable) with all capitalism. Capitalism comes in many forms.

Since 1983, household savings have distinctly declined and since the late 1970s, real wages have plummeted. Household debt is currently double income after tax (second highest private debt burden in the world). Both major parties have used private debt to run the economy and as we saw in America with the GFC, running an economy on private debt is unsustainable.

Unfortunately, we're on the precipice of a debt crisis in this country. By this time next year, the contraction in the housing market will trigger a financial collapse. This time they need to let it fail, otherwise there'll be no market discipline.

 

6 minutes ago, A F said:

This is the classic neoliberal model for privatisation. The same thing is happening at the ABC. Strip funding until things are so useless that people say we may as well privatise them.ĺ

We get worse consumer prices and worse service, with offshoring of local jobs as a triple whammy with privatisation.

Australia Post is effectively semi-privatised already. The stores are franchised and run as private businesses. I hate dealing with them. They're hopeless.

The privatisation of Telstra has been a disaster. Our public money paid for the infrastructure and it was handed to Murdoch to make money, except service plummeted and I don't know a single person on either side of the aisle that thinks Telstra is a remotely competent organisation. 

The privatisation of QANTAS by Keating has seen 25,000 people laid off because their CEO takes home multi million dollar pay cheques and without adequate competition, it's not a market, it's a monopoly. Consumers have no lever on price stability.

You can't expect better service when there's the profit motive, because in the inevitable economic downturn, private firms need to cut costs, which impacts on service and price stability.

Sure, we need a mixed economy, but some sectors should be in government hands and the only reason they're not is due to the failed macroeconomics of the current major parties. The Government is not financially constrained, it's resource constrained.

Government deficits create private wealth and fiscal surpluses strangle private wealth. It's why household savings dipped into recession during Costello's 10 surpluses in 11 years and the mining sector was in recession by 2007, because its debt burden was too great.

Menzies knew the power of fiscal deficits and it's why he championed massive fiscal deficits that allowed the private sector to save. This is no longer the goal, but maybe that's changing. That's the only way we're going to stop a financial collapse.

Thus ends the lecture for today.

Excellent posts!  Very articulate.

Are you sure you are a film maker and not an economist in disguise ?

On 10/22/2020 at 9:23 PM, Biffen said:

I' m not enthused.

The club needs a swamp drainer.

Trump should be available soon...

32 minutes ago, A F said:

This is the classic neoliberal model for privatisation. The same thing is happening at the ABC. Strip funding until things are so useless that people say we may as well privatise them.ĺ

We get worse consumer prices and worse service, with offshoring of local jobs as a triple whammy with privatisation.

Australia Post is effectively semi-privatised already. The stores are franchised and run as private businesses. I hate dealing with them. They're hopeless.

The privatisation of Telstra has been a disaster. Our public money paid for the infrastructure and it was handed to Murdoch to make money, except service plummeted and I don't know a single person on either side of the aisle that thinks Telstra is a remotely competent organisation. 

The privatisation of QANTAS by Keating has seen 25,000 people laid off because their CEO takes home multi million dollar pay cheques and without adequate competition, it's not a market, it's a monopoly. Consumers have no lever on price stability.

You can't expect better service when there's the profit motive, because in the inevitable economic downturn, private firms need to cut costs, which impacts on service and price stability.

Sure, we need a mixed economy, but some sectors should be in government hands and the only reason they're not is due to the failed macroeconomics of the current major parties. The Government is not financially constrained, it's resource constrained.

Government deficits create private wealth and fiscal surpluses strangle private wealth. It's why household savings dipped into recession during Costello's 10 surpluses in 11 years and the mining sector was in recession by 2007, because its debt burden was too great.

Menzies knew the power of fiscal deficits and it's why he championed massive fiscal deficits that allowed the private sector to save. This is no longer the goal, but maybe that's changing. That's the only way we're going to stop a financial collapse.

Thus ends the lecture for today.

This thread has taken yet another excellent turn that i wasnt expecting.

20 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Trump should be available soon...

His real estate contacts might come in handy for our HQ project ?

8 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

His real estate contacts might come in handy for our HQ project ?

Wish we got the same deals he did in 1975. Daddy's equity and crumbling NYC essentially paying him to take on abandoned buildings and refurbish them. HyperNormalisation explores this brilliantly.

this is why i love demonland