Board Changes

[deanox 9,989]

18 hours ago, old dee said:

An extremely good question! So we have the normal keep the board members in house. Two members retiring and two only applications so no need for us members to vote. Has been this way for at least the last 15 years. So good ship MFC slowly ploughs on.  

 

17 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Skillset is important but surely culture is more important. 
 

The AFL thinks boards should fill their own vacancies and avoid drama. 
 

Personally I wouldn’t mind an election every now and then to actual get a competition of ideas. Maybe even some every day folk who give voice to the fans. They won’t win the board seat but they might give the directors a taste of what members value 

 

As members we can put our hands up whenever we want. Are any of us well enough credentialled?

Good practice would be to review current capabilities, identify skill gaps, assess term lengths (its important to refresh members to bring in new perspectives), identify suitable candidates, and bring them into the fold.

Elections aren't healthy, they are combative and disruptive. You dont force yourself into a board without upsetting the balance of skills, personalities etc. You stand for election if you disagree with the current strategy, direction, or board performance. But you form a new ticket and try to take over.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

4 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Still not sure why Green is on the board. Does he have business accumen? Has he worked in management? What exactly does the board role of 'football' mean? 

Needs to be explained what skills he brings to the board outside of being an ex MFC player and assistant coach, which are FD roles

Not sure being an assistant coach cuts it as experience for a board position. Or perhaps he is there to work on our forwards set shot routines at training

Loved him as a player and captain, just unsure of what he brings to the board

I suppose you also think that Lethal and Dunstall were bad appointments at the Lions/Hawks boards respectively.

I'm not saying Green will be a good appointment but wowee wot a load of pointless drivel. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Unleash Hell

[old dee 23,871]

2 minutes ago, deanox said:

 

 

As members we can put our hands up whenever we want. Are any of us well enough credentialled?

Good practice would be to review current capabilities, identify skill gaps, assess term lengths (its important to refresh members to bring in new perspectives), identify suitable candidates, and bring them into the fold.

Elections aren't healthy, they are combative and disruptive. You dont force yourself into a board without upsetting the balance of skills, personalities etc. You stand for election if you disagree with the current strategy, direction, or board performance. But you form a new ticket and try to take over.

We have not had a member contestant vote in 15 years. Now remind me how that 15 years has played out! Oh that's right we made a brief finals  appearance in one year and rest we have been irrelevant to the competition.

[deanox 9,989]

32 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Folks might have inappropriate expectations of the Board and its members.

Its primary role relates to strategy and governance re football performance, financial performance etc  Implementation is the role of Pert and his GM's.  So I wouldn't expect to see a specific impact from Green on the football department.  That is what a GM Football is for. 

Several examples of football related board roles from other clubs (Don't know how we work). Note:  this isn't an exhaustive list at those clubs.

• Carlton:  Board/sub committee signs off on game plan/strategy and key trades. 
• Geelong:  Board/sub committe signs off on List Management strategy.  It has governance protocols in place where it reviews/endorses any player contract which is:  1) > than 3 years, 2) a player > than 30 and 3) > than $2m. 

I would like to think that Greens' role is to review the Board governance protocols around football and other football matters and recommend improvements, if necessary.   And work with GM football for regular performance reviews to report back to the Board or a sub committee.

For the Board to want a football person on the board signals they think there is work to be done on connections between the football department and the Board.  Otherwise it would hint of tokenism which I do not think would happen.

Clear and concose description, thanks. 

The one thing I would add is that the purpose of the board is to manage risk and not to manage decisions or tasks:

- the reason the Board/Subcommittee needs to sign off contracts of a certain length/value shouldnt be because the board are onvolved in list management decisions, its to make sure there is external review of higher risk management decisions. For example: people have complained about Goodwin selling our future to win extra games next year by signing Smith for 3 years, and this would probably need board approval first.

- the reason the Board/Subcommittee needs to sign off game plan /strategy isnt because they get to tell the coach which positions players should play, but so that the end goal /strategic direction of the plan is accepted. For example: we are on a development year, and our strategic imtent is to give players the opportunity to learn and develop through failure, vs we are going to make ruthless changes to win every game.

 

[deanox 9,989]

11 minutes ago, old dee said:

We have not had a member contestant vote in 15 years. Now remind me how that 15 years has played out! Oh that's right we made a brief finals  appearance in one year and rest we have been irrelevant to the competition.

Irrelevant.

Put your hand up if you think its important. As a member you can nominate for the board whenever you want.

Obviously the people with the skills haven't thought it was required and have opted to remain supportive of the current board. 

 

Edit:

A call for directors went out with the AGM notification last year. Put your hand up if you think you can do a better job.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://resources.melbournefc.com.au/aflc-melb/document/2019/12/16/2e4671f9-3884-4ae8-85be-507838f91f1e/MFC-Notice-of-AGM-2019.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA7KWU6MnsAhXz7XMBHepHCiMQFjAEegQIIRAH&usg=AOvVaw070qS-E0nxcumCZWIb-kg2&cshid=1603425301335

Edited October 23, 2020 by deanox

[old dee 23,871]

1 minute ago, deanox said:

Irrelevant.

Put your hand up if you think its important. As a member you can nominate for the board whenever you want.

Obviously the people with the skills haven't thought it was required and have opted to remain supportive of the current board. 

Or there are not enough who think they have a snow flake in hell chance of changing anything when they are out numbered 7 to 1. The MFC has for most of the last 30 years has been run by conservative don't rock the boat groups. Result nil. The only time I can remember members and board members got fired was at the time of the amalgmation vote. The rest of the time we are just [censored] who hardly even ask a question of the board at GM time.

[Lucifers Hero 40,356]

6 minutes ago, deanox said:

Clear and concose description, thanks. 

The one thing I would add is that the purpose of the board is to manage risk and not to manage decisions or tasks:

- the reason the Board/Subcommittee needs to sign off contracts of a certain length/value shouldnt be because the board are onvolved in list management decisions, its to make sure there is external review of higher risk management decisions. For example: people have complained about Goodwin selling our future to win extra games next year by signing Smith for 3 years, and this would probably need board approval first.

- the reason the Board/Subcommittee needs to sign off game plan /strategy isnt because they get to tell the coach which positions players should play, but so that the end goal /strategic direction of the plan is accepted. For example: we are on a development year, and our strategic imtent is to give players the opportunity to learn and develop through failure, vs we are going to make ruthless changes to win every game.

 

Do you know if we have similar board governance protocols for the things football like Carlton and Geelong do?  Or something we need to introduce.

[deanox 9,989]

4 minutes ago, old dee said:

Or there are not enough who think they have a snow flake in hell chance of changing anything when they are out numbered 7 to 1. The MFC has for most of the last 30 years has been run by conservative don't rock the boat groups. Result nil. The only time I can remember members and board members got fired was at the time of the amalgmation vote. The rest of the time we are just [censored] who hardly even ask a question of the board at GM time.

You have just explained why you aren't going to succeed, because you are in the minority.

If you have a full opposition board, with experience, skills and track record, and any real plan or direction, then maybe you'd stand a chance. But you don't, you're one bloke complaining.

And if you were worth your salt and genuinely felt there needed to be change, then you wouldnt complain. You'd get in touch with the current board, explain that you'd like to help on the board and that you had some ideas. They'd listen to you and decide whether you were a crack pot or a legiment asset, and react accordingly.

Put up or shut up. 

[old dee 23,871]

Just now, deanox said:

You have just explained why you aren't going to succeed, because you are in the minority.

If you have a full opposition board, with experience, skills and track record, and any real plan or direction, then maybe you'd stand a chance. But you don't, you're one bloke complaining.

And if you were worth your salt and genuinely felt there needed to be change, then you wouldnt complain. You'd get in touch with the current board, explain that you'd like to help on the board and that you had some ideas. They'd listen to you and decide whether you were a crack pot or a legiment asset, and react accordingly.

Put up or shut up. 

So which board member is in your family deanox? Why is your case proved if I don't apply. Quite happy to say I don't have the necessary experience. But I believe a lot of potential board members have been talked out of applying to keep things in house. The simple fact is a large number of boards of the MFC have been seriously in affective over half a century. I am not sure don't rock the boat has worked for the MFC.

[DeeSpencer 26,080]

30 minutes ago, deanox said:

 

 

As members we can put our hands up whenever we want. Are any of us well enough credentialled?

Good practice would be to review current capabilities, identify skill gaps, assess term lengths (its important to refresh members to bring in new perspectives), identify suitable candidates, and bring them into the fold.

Elections aren't healthy, they are combative and disruptive. You dont force yourself into a board without upsetting the balance of skills, personalities etc. You stand for election if you disagree with the current strategy, direction, or board performance. But you form a new ticket and try to take over.

There’s no incentive to put your hand up if it’s clear there won’t be elections.

The board reviews themselves and decides who to add, so they better be making good self evaluations.

Richmond copped a lot of grief for the group of guys who tried a takeover in 2016. The sitting board crushed them but the whole club rallied together. The challenges did strongly propose Balmey take over the footy department and that was a big success. 
 

I don’t think we need a takeover, but even if these are the only 2 names on the ballot let us vote for them. Make the club a club. The process alone will make more people engage with the club. 

[BDA 22,875]

To challenge there has to be a groundswell for change. Enough for a group of members to band together, and come up with a workable alternative board. Think opposition political parties.

We are financially sound. Money in the bank. No AFL line of credit. Sponsors have signed on again for next year. Massive tick. Cannot overstate how important it is to be solvent during Covid. Look at Norf as a reference point and count your blessings.

Not enough movement regarding the new HQ but I’m prepared to give more time considering the current environment. If a site hasn’t been selected and approval obtained within the next 18-24 months I’ll be asking questions.

Changes are afoot in the footy dept. Yze is a great addition. Hopefully one other capable assistant is secured. We seem to be targeting the right players (brown and Smith) and looking to offload underperformers (Tmac). A good trade period and I think we’re right in the mix for Top 4.

The board are going ok. Now is not the time for talk of takeovers or elections. Goodwin and Mahoney is where the focus should be imv.

[Adam The God 30,407]

5 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Surprised some are so against this decision. Green aside, surely it's a good move to have a former footballer on the board of a football club? Will only help to facilitate the connect between the board and the footy department and help to give the board even more clarity around how their decisions effect the playing group and coaches.

Sure, but is Green the most qualified to do this? We shall see.

[Lefty 412]

Are board members allowed to put boots on at training and practice goal kicking?

Actually asking a genuine question here. Legally, or from an OH&S perspective, can he do this?

We don't have a dedicated goal kicking coach (not counting ruck coach multitasking) and goal kicking is perhaps our second greatest weakness going forward. 

As to having a "footy guy" on the board I'm all for this. 

Welcome home Brad. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Lefty

[Lord Nev 13,512]

4 minutes ago, A F said:

Sure, but is Green the most qualified to do this? We shall see.

Yeah, no idea tbh. I think his credentials stack up ok experience wise, but I don't know enough about him in a board context to have an opinion.

[Clintosaurus 7,861]

Dunstall did alright in the same role at Hawthorn. Not sure what his credentials were.

[Adam The God 30,407]

22 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Dunstall did alright in the same role at Hawthorn. Not sure what his credentials were.

Good point. But it depends whether Dunstall's role had the same remit as Green's.

Edited October 23, 2020 by A F

[deanox 9,989]

1 hour ago, old dee said:

So which board member is in your family deanox? Why is your case proved if I don't apply. Quite happy to say I don't have the necessary experience. But I believe a lot of potential board members have been talked out of applying to keep things in house. The simple fact is a large number of boards of the MFC have been seriously in affective over half a century. I am not sure don't rock the boat has worked for the MFC.

I met a (now ex) board member in a pub once, and we had a chat, but that's the closest relationship I've had with one.

The types of people we are talking about don't get "talked out". If they have concerns and think change may need to be made they would enquire. If they are satisifed with what they see, they'll move on. If they not, they'll assess if the situation would be improved through a challenge, consider if they have an alternative ticket who would stand with them and then make a decision. It may be that they think the current practice isn't as good as it could be, but that destabilising would produce a worse outcome.

 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

There’s no incentive to put your hand up if it’s clear there won’t be elections.

The board reviews themselves and decides who to add, so they better be making good self evaluations.

Richmond copped a lot of grief for the group of guys who tried a takeover in 2016. The sitting board crushed them but the whole club rallied together. The challenges did strongly propose Balmey take over the footy department and that was a big success. 
 

I don’t think we need a takeover, but even if these are the only 2 names on the ballot let us vote for them. Make the club a club. The process alone will make more people engage with the club. 

People can put their hands up for an election whenever they want. There absolutley will be an election is a single person nominates themselves. 

People who are capable of operating in this environment understand that you dont fight and force yourself into a board. The board needs to be on the same team, alligned.

You enquire, express interest, become part of the team (whether officially or unofficially there are more then just the directors working on stuff), and if there is an need for your particular skills in the mix, you get more involved.

The other option is a whole board challenge, which brings down the house.

 

[Singa 224]

How do board appointments work? Don't the members have a say or do you vote in a President and their ticket and then they make any necessary changes during their term?

When is the next election? 

[Lucifers Hero 40,356]

The best thing the 'football' Board member can do is stay out of football decisions or day to day stuff.  Look at the mess at North from their football director calling the shots and to a lesser extent Roo at the Crows.

Strategy, governance, protocols, review and re-set protocols/strategy is the cycle of the board/sub committee role.  Otherwise they have the wrong staff running the show.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

19 hours ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

I worked with David Rennick, as a representative of a corporate client using his firm's property, development and construction expertise, over a number of years in a past  life. Serious Dees supporter (our relationship was during the exciting '90s!), central to growing his niche firm to major status, and/but a down to earth regular guy. I expect his worth will be considerable in the new headquarters project.

Good to know. I want to see board members with proper passion and knowledge about the club, not CV builders who wish to boast about being MFC board members at South Yarra dinner parties for social purposes.

That’s why the likes of Collingwood and Richmond make us look tres ordinaire - they’ve got rid of their politicians and get around people with legitimate passion for the club.

 

[deanox 9,989]

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Do you know if we have similar board governance protocols for the things football like Carlton and Geelong do?  Or something we need to introduce.

I don't actually.

We have an Audit Finance and Risk Committee which is likely to oversee all aspects of risk within the organisation. Without a formal "football director", we may not have been also operating a "football subcommittee". I'm not sure that is a problem but there may be advantages in separting out football rial management from operational/financial risk.

 

I can't recall ever reading about our board signing off on trades or contracts, like I do at other clubs. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but we haven't been advertising it.

At other clubs like North Melbourne and Adelaide, the "football director" seems to be doing more then strategic risk management, and actually running the place. I think this is likely to be worse.

 

[deanox 9,989]

14 minutes ago, Singa said:

How do board appointments work? Don't the members have a say or do you vote in a President and their ticket and then they make any necessary changes during their term?

When is the next election? 

When there is a casual vacancy, the board can appoint a director to fill that vacancy. That appointment is valid until the next AGM at which they need to be elected. 

Members can nominate for directorship. If there is only one nomination, there is no election.

 

[Lucifers Hero 40,356]

11 minutes ago, deanox said:

I don't actually.

We have an Audit Finance and Risk Committee which is likely to oversee all aspects of risk within the organisation. Without a formal "football director", we may not have been also operating a "football subcommittee". I'm not sure that is a problem but there may be advantages in separting out football rial management from operational/financial risk.

 

I can't recall ever reading about our board signing off on trades or contracts, like I do at other clubs. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but we haven't been advertising it.

At other clubs like North Melbourne and Adelaide, the "football director" seems to be doing more then strategic risk management, and actually running the place. I think this is likely to be worse.

 

Yeah, I haven't heard much about our governance protocols over football matters either.  Which makes me wonder whether we have them or they are inadequate and maybe Brad's role is to look at 'best practice' and implement and or update what we have.

fwiw I include 'risk' in governance as risk can occur in any part of the club.  Good governance and protocols are there to reduce risk.

I hope our football governance is up there or becomes like the standards the best clubs set.

Agreed there is a line that the board member shouldn't cross and from the outside it looks like it has been crossed at North and Adelaide, to their detriment.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Lucifer's Hero

[old55 23,687]

5 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Hopefully he is directly involved in the running of the Football Department 

(Speaks regularly with Yze and Goodwin)

Amazed you're a fan, what with "186", "history of cultural failure", Norm Smith yada-yada.

But then you don't understand the role. Have a read of @Lucifer's Hero and @deanox posts for a clear understanding.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Pollyanna

[Sir Why You Little 37,124]

1 minute ago, Pollyanna said:

Amazed you're a fan, what with "186", "history of cultural failure", Norm Smith yada-yada.

You are a fool if you take no notice of the past. It will just repeat itself

i am yet to be a “fan” as i have no idea of his credentials, but he is there, so it better work. 
Brad’s Twitter feed can be quite entertaining