The Monkey and The Ass

[Pilgram]

Every Club has a different structure at Board Level, that much is known. What is not always known is the structure that works best for each Club.

In terms of the fixation we have for information in this age, Individuals are selected by their Club to represent them in the media and those Individuals tend to inform the media and society on what may be good about the Club’s position.

If you take Hawthorn for instance, the Individual who does most of the media work is the Club’s Head Coach - Alastair Clarkson, along with his Player’s. With Geelong it tends to be both the Coach and the President who are respected in the media as the Club’s view.

With Collingwood and North Melbourne the honours are largely shared between the Coach, the President, the CEO and the Players. The Western Bulldogs are usually all about the psychology of the Coach and occasionally the view of the Players and the President.

St. Kilda has a structure in dealing with the media where the Players and Coach are highly visable, the CEO represents the Board of Directors in the media and these days, the President, Greg Westaway, does somewhat no media whatsoever.

Every Club has a different structure at Board Level, that much is known. What is not always known is the structure that works best for each Club. While some Clubs at Board Level have Individuals in charge of direction, other Clubs have a Democratic process where every Individual at Board Level has an equal right. The question is, which way works best and is there a Universal formula for a Board of Directors? Well, yes there is, and the Universal formula has been employed by the St. Kilda Football Club Board of Directors in their decision to not employ Ben Cousins.

The democratic decision not to employ Ben Cousins was made by a vote in which if there were any Individual on the Board of Directors that did not agree with the motion, the motion were not to pass. The way that decisions are made at St. Kilda is democratically. Of the thousands of issues that could potentially stop a move like that of employing Ben Cousins, it only takes one issue for/from one Individual Board Member that is strong enough to affect his vote enough in the negative and the motion in passed in the negative, on what is declared a unanimous and collective Board Decision.

The question is not did St. Kilda get it wrong. The real questions that Clubs like Collingwood in their Dictatorship have to answer are is it wrong in the way that the ruling Constitutional Dictatorship’s they have at Board Level deals with issue’s and why do they indeed insist upon a Constitutional Dictatorship?

Board decisions and the way with which their decision's are represented are two separate things. What should matter most to an Organisation is that the decision making process is a Democratic process and not a process of Dictatorship, together with the way in which their decision’s are presented, perhaps to the media.

Organisations that employ a Dictatorship in decision making are less successful than organisations that employ democratic process.

With relation to the media, it could be said that the St. Kilda Board have an elected media representative in the CEO and that the Players and Coach do some media work as part of their position whilst the rest of the Board of Directors and the Club President have a behind-the-scenes position as part of the Club Democracy. It may not be what everyone wants, Democracy rarely is what everyone wants, however Democracy is what most people want, most of the time.

For, any Organisation that does not employ Democratic process at Board Level, there will always be issues. And, for any Organisation that does employ Democratic process there will always be issues. However, it has been shown historically, that if an Organisation is able to work through issues with democratic process they will largely succeed over an Organisation that employs a Dictatorship.

The Footy First spill is the best thing that has happened at the St. Kilda Football Club in decades because what the Board of Directors has, as Individuals, is a position of equality internally. Every Individual on the St. Kilda Football Club Board of Directors has a Democratic and equal representation of opinion on the direction that they feel the Club may need to make.

Like it or not, Democracy at Board Level within the St. Kilda Football Club is here to stay.

Have a nice day.

[JeffDunne]

TBH, I'm sick of hearing Footy First.

St Kilda First is what this board should be about. I know the two aren't mutually exclusive but lets drop that FF title.

Successful clubs are successful because they put the interests of the club first. Hawthorn are the classic example however I'm hoping Westaway is more like Dicker than Jeff.

So far I've been happy with the overall direction even if I disagree with the odd decision.

[Legendary]

The board refer to themselves as the "St Kilda Board", not as "Footy First" ... it's only some fans that have kept that campaign title ...

[JeffDunne]

My comment wasn't directed at the board.

[james rose]

Really well written and interesting piece, thank you for taking the time to write and share.

Its an interesting topic because it lends itself to very little risk you have a much more stable club conductive to continuous improvement however you miss out on the rewards often associated with risk which could accelerate progress... in my opinion trying to find some balance is the hard part.

[Pilgram]

thanks JR.
JD, the reference to footy first was merely an example of the change that has come to the club recently.
everything the club stands for these days is the greatest good.
one bloke like ben cousins can not upset the club vision.
for the most part i have found that the negative component of the club are also the frustrated and impatient component.
the frustration amongst members is the only thing that is in the way.
when st. kilda win the flag (now, or in a decade) the people that have been crying for the flag will find something new to complain about.
the nature of a democracy is that frustration has no voice.

[desertsaint]

The democratic decision not to employ Ben Cousins was made by a vote in which if there were any Individual on the Board of Directors that did not agree with the motion, the motion were not to pass. The way that decisions are made at St. Kilda is democratically. Of the thousands of issues that could potentially stop a move like that of employing Ben Cousins, it only takes one issue for/from one Individual Board Member that is strong enough to affect his vote enough in the negative and the motion in passed in the negative, on what is declared a unanimous and collective Board Decision.

Is that democracy in action? I'm not sure how effective such a decision-making process could be - imagine a lower house or a senate that could be retarded by one vote?

Two potential problems with such a process are outlined below.

The first problem with such a model is the unspoken pressure for consensus - leading to a groupthink mentality. Knowing your voice alone can decide an issue could conversely pressure you into agreeing on issues - both due to the likelihood of creating animosity amongst others and also to create the perception that agreement is unanimous.

The other problem is obvious - I'm all for open and frank discussion amongst leaders - but where is the imperative to convince others of the legitimacy of your beliefs/actions if your voice alone can forstall action.

[sunsaint]

In-depth and timely yes,
but misses a major point.
StKilda's board of directors acts as an oligarchy not a democracy.
I have more say as a stockmarket shareholder with a company boards' actions than i do over the decision made by the stkilda board.
They are democratically elected yes, usually with a policy directive which then gives them a mandate to carry out those objectives. But, we the people, have no other say in issues until the next board spill.
And as many people have pointed out the policy they went to the people with was "Footy First". Whether the current board are now trying to distance themselves from that tag is neither here nor there. But the recent decision, has a most people split as to whether "Footy First" was ever the real agenda.
On another point about the board being democratic, if the board was split and the majority got over ruled by sponsorship concerns, then we have to come up with a whole new political term for the way the current board governs....just a thought.

[Pilgram]

I just liked the title I came up with and provided a rant to go with it...

[sunsaint]

Fair enough, so does that make me the monkey or the ass?

[Pilgram]

Fair enough, so does that make me the monkey or the ass?

i dunno, i was just thinking about the circus for some reason, god knows why...

[WayneJudson42]

Footy First was the name of the ticket. Much like an election slogan.

The implied agenda was to focus on building the footy dept in contrast to the cost-cutting regime they threw out.

Their premise is that you need to build onfield success.

Now, let's take a look at the facts:

They have drastically invested in off-field personell. They are about to seal a deal for an elite training facility which puts the players welfare first and foremost.

Sure, we may not like what they say or what's in their press releases. But at the end of the day, they are delivering.

And I suspect that the decision to reject BC was based on their objectives, as well as other reasons which we may never know about.

As for the voting... they came out with a unified front. What else should they have done?

Come and say that the board was split? Imagine the headlines and the ridicule.

I too would like to know the real reasons. But in the end, I have to leave it to them. And that does not mean that I "blindly" follow what they do.

IMO, these are matters which are out of my control, so why worry?

I simply believe that it is wrong for all of us to allow an idividual split the club, whilst he goes on his merry way, and not giving a stuff about the StKFC.

For a meeting to take 4 hours indicates that a lot was discussed until a decision was made. For once, we do it right, rather than running off half-cocked like we usually do.

[FortiusQuoFidelius]

StKilda's board of directors acts as an oligarchy not a democracy.

Dont you mean olig-Archie...

[jays]

go saints ben or not

[Pilgram]

Footy First was the name of the ticket. Much like an election slogan.

The implied agenda was to focus on building the footy dept in contrast to the cost-cutting regime they threw out.

Their premise is that you need to build onfield success.

Now, let's take a look at the facts:

They have drastically invested in off-field personell. They are about to seal a deal for an elite training facility which puts the players welfare first and foremost.

Sure, we may not like what they say or what's in their press releases. But at the end of the day, they are delivering.

And I suspect that the decision to reject BC was based on their objectives, as well as other reasons which we may never know about.

As for the voting... they came out with a unified front. What else should they have done?

Come and say that the board was split? Imagine the headlines and the ridicule.

I too would like to know the real reasons. But in the end, I have to leave it to them. And that does not mean that I "blindly" follow what they do.

IMO, these are matters which are out of my control, so why worry?

I simply believe that it is wrong for all of us to allow an idividual split the club, whilst he goes on his merry way, and not giving a stuff about the StKFC.

For a meeting to take 4 hours indicates that a lot was discussed until a decision was made. For once, we do it right, rather than running off half-cocked like we usually do.

i like reading your posts WJ42
there was always that element of doubt wasn't there..
you just never knew whether they were going to take the risk and thankfully, i think, in hindsight they took the conservative route.
the clubs reputation would have been staked on one man, think about that for a minute.
i know,
its a bit much.
there is too much at stake.
the reputaiton of the organisation is paramount.
the reputation of the board itself was at stake.
as a member i would have liked to have seen him play for the saints, however i can, as can you, understand that as a board member you cant put your trust and your reputation on the line individually and suggest that you have nothing to lose. as a board member one would have a lot to lose by employing a guy in your organisation with a checkered history.