Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Sat Jul 12, 2025 7:22 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:19 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:51 am
Posts: 4919
Mrs Caz wrote:
Did i hear correctly? Bertocchi just announced as a sponsor for 2006


We can't have talk like that in here. Give yourself a warning :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:21 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:00 pm
Posts: 2550
Location: Safe distance away
woof wrote:
Synbad wrote:
[
Caroline wilson last night again REITERATED that she was told we would go for assistance and again said TWO board members told her so.. after the story in the AGE.. the club went into damage control because of the heading 'BLUEBEGGERS' forced a meeting and came out of that meeting with a denial .
she said they had no problems with the story itself originally...the problem was with the headline 'BLUEBEGGERS'.. which the club thought would be hurtful to its image.

So what they did is went out and called Caro a LIAR!!.. which does not go well with how she and others will be treating us from this point on...Caro was on Collos side prior to this.. make no mistake.


Synbad are you saying when Caro was on Collos side and started treating our club favourably in the media she decided to head the front page of the sports section of "THE AGE" with the heading "BLUEBEGGERS" when two directors told her that we were going to ask for AFL assistance.
Will you stop shooting yourself in the foot.


Paper editors make the headlines not the journo's.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:23 pm 
Offline
Ken Hunter
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:12 am
Posts: 10414
Location: Coburg
I apoloizise :oops: - normal transmition will resume shortly Mr Blue Vein Cheese....see it just did 8)

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:34 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am
Posts: 18076
dannyboy wrote:
I apoloizise :oops: - normal transmition will resume shortly Mr Blue Vein Cheese....see it just did 8)


No. It's ok.

Thats definitely Danny. :lol:

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:39 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am
Posts: 18076
Mrs Caz wrote:
Did i hear correctly? Bertocchi just announced as a sponsor for 2006


That's part of the problem Caz.
Existing Carlton people/supporters are propping the club up.
The Toshiba Home Theatre was a perfect example.
As is Bertocchi, the apparel.........We need to bring new sponsors in as the existing ones are being bled dry.
They shouldnt have to carry the burden.

We should be attracting sponsors because we are an exciting, progressive organisation going places in a hurry.
Instead we are playing the victim card. :(

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:41 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 1277
Location: Perth
We need to attract nationally recognisable brands to large sponsorship deals...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:11 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:47 am
Posts: 18288
Location: talkingcarlton.com
Blue Vain wrote:
Mrs Caz wrote:
Did i hear correctly? Bertocchi just announced as a sponsor for 2006


That's part of the problem Caz.
Existing Carlton people/supporters are propping the club up.
The Toshiba Home Theatre was a perfect example.
As is Bertocchi, the apparel.........We need to bring new sponsors in as the existing ones are being bled dry.
They shouldnt have to carry the burden.

We should be attracting sponsors because we are an exciting, progressive organisation going places in a hurry.
Instead we are playing the victim card. :(


Not sure I understand you drift BV...
The apparel is a new sponsor...isn't Bertocchi new? (I've never noticed their presence before)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:19 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 24655
Location: Kaloyasena
Mrs Caz wrote:
Blue Vain wrote:
Mrs Caz wrote:
Did i hear correctly? Bertocchi just announced as a sponsor for 2006


That's part of the problem Caz.
Existing Carlton people/supporters are propping the club up.
The Toshiba Home Theatre was a perfect example.
As is Bertocchi, the apparel.........We need to bring new sponsors in as the existing ones are being bled dry.
They shouldnt have to carry the burden.

We should be attracting sponsors because we are an exciting, progressive organisation going places in a hurry.
Instead we are playing the victim card. :(


Not sure I understand you drift BV...
The apparel is a new sponsor...isn't Bertocchi new? (I've never noticed their presence before)



I think BV means they are just companies whose owners are dyed in the wool Carlton Supporters - and whilst their sponsorship is welcomed and appreciated. I think BV is wanting Carlton to cast its net further for the Multi-Nationals. Like your Coca Colas, Nestles, General Motors-Holden etc.
:wink:

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:33 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:06 pm
Posts: 35989
Location: Half back flank
They've been a shorts sponsor before haven't they?

_________________
#DonTheStash


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:37 pm 
Offline
John Nicholls

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:10 pm
Posts: 9404
Location: Back 50 of the Tiger Den
Quote:
Like your Coca Colas, Nestles, General Motors-Holden etc.


Gary Ayres, is that you?

_________________
Writer for SuperCoach Paige www.scpaige.com.au
Twitter - @johnfeeney24


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:37 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:47 am
Posts: 18288
Location: talkingcarlton.com
AGRO wrote:
[
I think BV means they are just companies whose owners are dyed in the wool Carlton Supporters - and whilst their sponsorship is welcomed and appreciated. I think BV is wanting Carlton to cast its net further for the Multi-Nationals. Like your Coca Colas, Nestles, General Motors-Holden etc.
:wink:


OK, that makes sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:38 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:51 am
Posts: 4919
Beantown wrote:
woof wrote:
Synbad wrote:
[
Caroline wilson last night again REITERATED that she was told we would go for assistance and again said TWO board members told her so.. after the story in the AGE.. the club went into damage control because of the heading 'BLUEBEGGERS' forced a meeting and came out of that meeting with a denial .
she said they had no problems with the story itself originally...the problem was with the headline 'BLUEBEGGERS'.. which the club thought would be hurtful to its image.

So what they did is went out and called Caro a LIAR!!.. which does not go well with how she and others will be treating us from this point on...Caro was on Collos side prior to this.. make no mistake.


Synbad are you saying when Caro was on Collos side and started treating our club favourably in the media she decided to head the front page of the sports section of "THE AGE" with the heading "BLUEBEGGERS" when two directors told her that we were going to ask for AFL assistance.
Will you stop shooting yourself in the foot.


Paper editors make the headlines not the journo's.


Well we should be leaking the information to the Paper Editors not the journa's because they are the ones we need favours from.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:40 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:46 am
Posts: 3509
Location: Brisbane
Look,

I am not saying don't hold the Board responsible. In fact, just the opposite. I am saying that you CAN hold the Board responsible at the next AGM, just as many of you held them responsible at the most recent AGM through the election of Lee. If you want more information, and you want a vision then you have every right to vote for it. And I hear the concerns of all and sundry on this matter.
But for the moment I am concerned that the silent majority of Carlton members who perhaps read these pages, and don't contribute, or whatever are able to understand that the failure to present a vision is not in and of itself a matter of deriliction unless the membership holds the Board to such responsibilities through their votes at the AGM.
The original point of this thread was along the lines that the Board is derilict because they have not provided a vision. I simply make the point that this is not the case unless the broad membership chooses to make it so through a vote at the AGM. The undecided now have the opportunity to decide for themselves (rather than through emotional argument) as to whether the fact they have not been provided with a vision makes the Board culpable.
And that's a debate which I have in no way sought to enter :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:25 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:44 am
Posts: 3136
Molly wrote:
Look,

I am not saying don't hold the Board responsible. In fact, just the opposite. I am saying that you CAN hold the Board responsible at the next AGM, just as many of you held them responsible at the most recent AGM through the election of Lee. If you want more information, and you want a vision then you have every right to vote for it. And I hear the concerns of all and sundry on this matter.
But for the moment I am concerned that the silent majority of Carlton members who perhaps read these pages, and don't contribute, or whatever are able to understand that the failure to present a vision is not in and of itself a matter of deriliction unless the membership holds the Board to such responsibilities through their votes at the AGM.
The original point of this thread was along the lines that the Board is derilict because they have not provided a vision. I simply make the point that this is not the case unless the broad membership chooses to make it so through a vote at the AGM. The undecided now have the opportunity to decide for themselves (rather than through emotional argument) as to whether the fact they have not been provided with a vision makes the Board culpable.
And that's a debate which I have in no way sought to enter :lol:


Given the reported difficulties encountered with voting (ie registration etc) and that voting is not compulsory effecting change at board level is going to be a very gradual process (barring a fullscale coup as in collo/elliot transition). One new board member was elected this year - On a 'active' voting year you might get a two board changes. On a board of 9(? there are 11 on the club page btw though i think it might be dated?) it would take 4-6 years to instigate any real changes at board level (ie above 50% 'new' blood). You are comparing a footy club to a corporation. In the real world directors often have performance indicators and can be terminated or replaced without having the go to a vote of shareholders. That obviously isnt the case with a footy club.

As for the silent majority - with all due respect, the silent majority probably never casts votes (unless something drastic happens) and are only concerned with onfield performance. From a membership of 33000, only 2000 members voted on the board members (6%). As for voting on resolutions within the meeting, pretty pointless when you have 200 people present and the board holds 400 proxies. True?

Which brings me back to the comparison between companies and a foot club and voting re:directors or resolutions. In a footy club it is one person, one vote - with 6% of members voting and most of which will go with the status quo unless something is obviously amiss, real change is rare. Contrast that with any listed company where an individual can hold any number of shares (and hence proportional voting rights). Even then for the normal ordinary shareholder, voting is primarily pointless. Real change is instigated by the majority shareholders - the select few individuals who have the capital to buy 1-10% of a companies listed shares, the fundmanagers and the investment companies. When you cast your vote for telstra's board of directors do you really think you will make a difference?

Btw, I've never used emotive arguements before so technically my posts provide the silent majority with information in a more readily available and digestable form than what is provided through the clubs website or through the media - and I'm also a lot less biased than the media too :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:33 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 24655
Location: Kaloyasena
phoenix johnson wrote:
Quote:
Like your Coca Colas, Nestles, General Motors-Holden etc.


Gary Ayres, is that you?



Yep and so is my mullett, which must be 4, 5, 6 inches long.


Introducing Robert "The Count" Walls. :lol:

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:34 pm 
Offline
Laurie Kerr

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:03 am
Posts: 118
Surely the point is this...
The club is floundering in so many ways it is not funny. Sometimes in business and in sport it is not the current admin that is at fault. Who's fault it is is a moot point. We should draw a line in the sand and say to ourselves whats past is past. Once you do that, you can then sit back and ask yourself the question, "am I confident that the current admin have the skills and motivation to lead the club in the direction we all hope"

When I ask myself this question, I answer clearly "NO".

Why? Because I have no reason to believe in the admins VISION -because I have not heard it.

We can argue all day about whether they should communicate this or that, but the bottom line is that they- the club admin, Collins, Malouf etc have the ball in their court. They are the ones that decide what we hear or dont hear. Whether we hear a unified message or not, or whether we hear multiple versions of the same "facts" that are just plain hard to reconcile eg the figures on the ground maintenance.

PR firms use a term called "damage control". Obviously Collins thinks that PR is just a buzz word that applies to other people. Damage control Ian , involves deciding what message it is that you want to send, put a positive spin on it, and then SELL IT TO THOSE THAT NEED TO HEAR IT.

And to the Mollys of this world, who think that their flawed analogy between a public company and a football club is relevant, remember the following
1. Public companies are there to make money. Football clubs are there to field football teams. You can make money without selling a Vision, but a wooden spoon club trying to make money selling memberships without a vision....

2. History is littered with CEO's of flailing Public companies that been given the boot because they have been unable to sell "the Vision"

3. One of the great critisisms of modern day CEO's by Warren Buffet is that the Fund Managers exert too great an influence on CEO's decision making. The reality is that as major shareholders they have the voting power to make changes when they are not convinced of the Boards abilities. Why? Because they can. As members of this once great club we can do the same.
Collins can choose to treat the members like mushrooms starving them of insights into the club- fine, legally he can but there are consequences which are obvious. Or he can wake up and start realising that he is running a FOOTBALL CLUB which can only survive on PASSION. When on field performances are down we as supporters need the passion to come from you- when you sell your vision. To date you have been found wanting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:47 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 1277
Location: Perth
Molly wrote:
Look,

I am not saying don't hold the Board responsible. In fact, just the opposite. I am saying that you CAN hold the Board responsible at the next AGM, just as many of you held them responsible at the most recent AGM through the election of Lee. If you want more information, and you want a vision then you have every right to vote for it. And I hear the concerns of all and sundry on this matter.
But for the moment I am concerned that the silent majority of Carlton members who perhaps read these pages, and don't contribute, or whatever are able to understand that the failure to present a vision is not in and of itself a matter of deriliction unless the membership holds the Board to such responsibilities through their votes at the AGM.
The original point of this thread was along the lines that the Board is derilict because they have not provided a vision. I simply make the point that this is not the case unless the broad membership chooses to make it so through a vote at the AGM. The undecided now have the opportunity to decide for themselves (rather than through emotional argument) as to whether the fact they have not been provided with a vision makes the Board culpable.
And that's a debate which I have in no way sought to enter :lol:


I think we hear what you are saying, that the board is upholding its LEGAL responsibilities. I agree with you, I have no quarrel with the board on issues of legality.

However, this board ran on a platform of increasing transparency to members. It simply hasn't happened. And in terms of a vision, i'm not expecting to see the club annouce a vision statement in a press release. But I am expecting the club to be espousing elements of their vision for the future in the media, to increase the confidence of members, supporters and prospective sponsors about the future.

The club has had the opportunity to do this when they announced the financial results, but instead Collo harped on about the past and took potshots at Kouta's contract. They had another opportunity at the AGM, again, nothing.

It's public record that we have issues with sponsorship, and until we start being positive about the future, I can't see that changing. Instead we get a press release saying that we've managed to squeeze a few extra bucks from an existing sponsor by sending Denis to meet their CEO. Why the hell can't Malouf, as our CEO, espouse our value and get a commitment from decision makers, or Collo, or anyone currently involved in the club?

Instead we are stuck with reactive measures; reintroducing pay by installments membership to lapsed members, sending in Denis to a non-football meeting, getting players on the phones trying to increase membership. It's all so 1980's, no wonder why we are being left behind. And these things are sensible in our current plight, but where the hell is the vision and leadership from the executive and board???

So while all legalities are currently being met, I'm concerned because we appear to be directionless while at the same time being technically insolvent. We can't afford to sit on our laurels, because the board doesn't have a track record of being proactive, and at the moment we'll be behind this years financial plan again because of poor membership. We can't afford to just take the word of this board that it'll all be right by the end of '07, because the goal posts keep moving and it clearly won't be.

I'm afraid that if we don't hold them accountable and require excellence from them, that it might be too late if they don't deliver in '07 for someone else to turn it around after that.

<Apologies for the rant, i'm just incredibly frustrated>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:15 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 2:32 pm
Posts: 33043
Location: Back in reality
The last two sponsors announced are new sponsor categories for 06.

I'd say that's pretty good news and they're still using the word 'sponsors' in reference to pending developments, plural... so we've picked up some more still! :)

Probably joint ground sponsors but don't dampen my enthusiasm you pricks :P

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:32 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:08 pm
Posts: 1277
Location: Perth
Don't worry Jimmae, the footy starts tomorrow. Then we'll all have something real to talk about :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Womack
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:52 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:40 pm
Posts: 7477
Thats the scary part,aint it Womack.Im just sittin' here,waitin for the cavalry to come charging over the horizon.They are there aint they ?

_________________
All my dangerous friends


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 57 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group