Footy First are finished - where are the challengers?

[gringo]

What sort of half-wit starts a thread like this one?

Honestly?

Do some research. Get a clue.

The original 'Footy First' board was:
Greg Westaway
Nathan Burke
Andrew Thompson
Simon Grant
John Gdanski
Ross Levin

The ONLY directors left from that board are Burke and Thompson.

The rest of the current board are entirely independent - they are not "aligned" as a ticket, and people like Jack Rush QC and Paul Kirk are very strong minds who have no allegiance to each other at all.

They are just a group of very talented and successful people who have come together in unity to run the club.

Exactly what a good board should be.

We have easily one of the most experienced, well-connected boards in the AFL. Compare the achievements and success of our current directors to many other clubs and you will come away impressed and respectful of their position.


Don't mouth off like an idiot and give Caroline Wilson her next headline.

You know why there's been no whiff of any challenge?

Because people who aren't muppets like you and who have dealt with the current board behind the scenes realise their expertise and capability.

But we should spill the board and cause mayhem so we can keep the high media exposure going shouldn't we? Why look competent when we could make more noise.

I think we should get Saintspremiers and Bigmart in to clean up the mess. Two very highly motivated individuals with a strong vision of everything that is wrong at the club. The will get the finances right and do all the cool stuff they can think of. Go guys.

[Bernard Shakey]

We have the right board for the times and now we've got the right coach. The right CEO and it's onwards and upwards!

Have a Lucky Burger on me, Bernard!

I wish!

[thejiggingsaint]

I don't think SP is a "half wit" for starting this thread, his right to an opinion. However, I do agree with the main issues contained in Legendary's post. Change (particularly for our club!) can take a decade or more to become effective, and during such a period there will be some pain, yes and an amount of turmoil at times. My take on this situation, is to remain calm, to give the board and coach the benefit of my support (both financially and morally) NOT "blindly" as some seem to think, but deliberately and with full knowledge of what I can expect from those outside of our club for such support. If we cannot move on from the recent events and give support, then this state of affairs will continue. We have a simple choice SP; Leave our preconceptions and doubts as to the new coach's chances of success and provide support. OR simply wait for the next crisis to come along.

[magnifisaint]

Put on some shades. The sun is too bright!

[evertonfc]

We have easily one of the most experienced, well-connected boards in the AFL. Compare the achievements and success of our current directors to many other clubs and you will come away impressed and respectful of their position.

I wonder, however, what this board have really done.

As far as I can tell, they have failed to take the club forward. Indeed, they have actively promoted its regression (failing to keep a top coach, failed to manage an up-and-coming-coach, moving to Seaford, selling games to New Zealand, running up sizable debts and an active failure to turn the 2009-10 years into tangible clubs progress).

These guys might have done law degrees, MBA and have holiday homes in Portsea, but I really wonder if they have the smarts in terms of football and football business. They've proven rudderless. Jesus, Eddie McGuire hasn't a tenth of their qualifications and he turned Collingwood into an ungodly beast through his mental sharpness and footy nous.

Post-Buttress, we needed change.

But we needed active, forward-thinking and dynamic people. I look at our board and it looks stodgy, boring and uninspired.

[fingers]

What sort of half-wit starts a thread like this one?

Honestly?

Do some research. Get a clue.

The original 'Footy First' board was:
Greg Westaway
Nathan Burke
Andrew Thompson
Simon Grant
John Gdanski
Ross Levin

The ONLY directors left from that board are Burke and Thompson.

The rest of the current board are entirely independent - they are not "aligned" as a ticket, and people like Jack Rush QC and Paul Kirk are very strong minds who have no allegiance to each other at all.

They are just a group of very talented and successful people who have come together in unity to run the club.

Exactly what a good board should be.

We have easily one of the most experienced, well-connected boards in the AFL. Compare the achievements and success of our current directors to many other clubs and you will come away impressed and respectful of their position.


Don't mouth off like an idiot and give Caroline Wilson her next headline.

You know why there's been no whiff of any challenge?

Because people who aren't muppets like you and who have dealt with the current board behind the scenes realise their expertise and capability.

From memory this is the first change of President in the lat 3, 4 maybe 5 that hasn't been the result of a challenge.

[Legendary]

We have easily one of the most experienced, well-connected boards in the AFL. Compare the achievements and success of our current directors to many other clubs and you will come away impressed and respectful of their position.

I wonder, however, what this board have really done.

As far as I can tell, they have failed to take the club forward. Indeed, they have actively promoted its regression (failing to keep a top coach, failed to manage an up-and-coming-coach, moving to Seaford, selling games to New Zealand, running up sizable debts and an active failure to turn the 2009-10 years into tangible clubs progress).

These guys might have done law degrees, MBA and have holiday homes in Portsea, but I really wonder if they have the smarts in terms of football and football business. They've proven rudderless. Jesus, Eddie McGuire hasn't a tenth of their qualifications and he turned Collingwood into an ungodly beast through his mental sharpness and footy nous.

Post-Buttress, we needed change.

But we needed active, forward-thinking and dynamic people. I look at our board and it looks stodgy, boring and uninspired.

Half the board - Roach, Rush, Kirk and Caplan are "newcomers" (appointed in the last 12 months) - and two others in McLeod and Summers have (from what I understand) been in a relative minority position on some key issues since commencing as directors (and they have both only been on the board for shy of 3 years).

In my opinion the current board can only be judged on its work in the past 12 months. Prior to that, the composition of the board was too different to attribute much of what you have listed above.

I agree that the leadership of Greg Westaway, Ross Levin and Michael Nettlefold failed the club in all the areas you have listed.

However - those three men are either gone or on their way out.

Since Roach, Rush, Kirk and Caplan have joined the board, there has been:
- Strategic review of the NZ opportunity, which has been confirmed as only 1 "feature" ANZAC day game per season for the next 5 years.
- Thorough review of the football department, leading to the appointment of a new coach and new fitness boss.
- Extensive behind the scenes planning to return the club permanently to Moorabbin (this will happen).
- Repairing relationships with some very influential stakeholders (which had been damaged).
- Effective termination of the CEO and a thorough search for a long-term outstanding replacement.

In my opinion, this is what the current board must be judged upon. To apportion responsibility to the current board for Lyon leaving or the Seaford move is incorrect and inaccurate.

This will be the board that returns the Saints to Moorabbin.

[Johnny Member]

Jesus, Eddie McGuire hasn't a tenth of their qualifications and he turned Collingwood into an ungodly beast through his mental sharpness and footy nous.

I don't think you really grasp what a Board does and is expected to do.


Also, Eddie Maguire's sharp mind and footy nous probably attributed 10% of the impact he has had at Collingwood - his pull in the media attributed the other 90%.

[Johnny Member]

I mean really, just imagine two regular businesses for moment.

Two presidents, chairmans, whatever.

One has full access to a TV station, newspaper and a radio station. Whilst the other doesn't.

One had a weekly TV show which rates highly, which subject matter is the very product that both businesses are selling. The other doesn't.

One gets handed an ANZAC Day game each and every year, plus maximum TV exposure and scheduled 'blockbusters' every 2nd week. The other doesn't.



Now seriously, really, how and/or why would anyone expect both businesses to operate the same and be equally successful?

[Dr Spaceman]

I mean really, just imagine two regular businesses for moment.

Two presidents, chairmans, whatever.

One has full access to a TV station, newspaper and a radio station. Whilst the other doesn't.

One had a weekly TV show which rates highly, which subject matter is the very product that both businesses are selling. The other doesn't.

One gets handed an ANZAC Day game each and every year, plus maximum TV exposure and scheduled 'blockbusters' every 2nd week. The other doesn't.



Now seriously, really, how and/or why would anyone expect both businesses to operate the same and be equally successful?

Exactly.

I have an International Airline that's trying to get a foothold in Australia. Or perhaps a chain store of mobile phone outlets that need promoting. Maybe a luxury car that needs a higher profile.

Hmmm, who am I going to sponsor?

St Kilda? Western Bulldogs? Maybe.

Or maybe the bloke who will talk me up on the Footy Show each week and perhaps even have a few of my people sitting at a table in the audience. And then blab on about it on the radio and in the newspapers.

Difficult question isn't it?