As president can't Mark reduce the size of the board and cut the people he doesn't want? Or does the board need to vote on that?

Agree entirely.

If the sponsorship comes with strings, then it's better to be going cap in hand begging the AFL for money, and begging on street corners for the $$.

The Pratts and Mathieson dollars are tainted money. Tainted by what they imply to buy on the board, not by how it was attained originally. That's a whole different bucket of crap.

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

We're talking about billionaires here. Instead of drip feeding whatever $ they currently put in with all the strings, they should either wipe out the debt in one hit or bugger off entirely. Does Geelong, Hawthorn etc need these types to create and foster financially robust clubs?

Or is this club so far gone that it can't do what many clubs have done before and build a self sustaining model.

I would much rather these people just leave and let someone else have a go. Their time has gone. They've failed.

The right CEO will GTFO of the football dept and focus on building the business in the right way. The right president will provide his/her network, smarts and mentorship without ego. The club is bigger than the current board.

Well said

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

billionaires behaviour?

no different to the allowed behaviour on this site?

it is an emotional pastime....we all have entitlement

Haven't you heard, the age if entitlement is over!

And no, they're most definitely not entitled to make the club their private plaything. If they want to, then buy it outright. But I guarantee I for one will be walking away from the club if it happens and it goes to the Pratts or Mathiesons.

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

For the amount of billionaires with have at the club, no-one is coming up with some really good business strategy and solutions to help the club make some good honest money.

Seems strange really.

Not really. Ruffy Germinder has already self-reported on what he knows about this football club and fan engagement. Ask yourself the question...what if there's another 4 on the board who are no better? And what if, for arguments sake - they weren't looking for a 'solution' because in their eyes - the footy club is 'traveling ok'.

I am confused really.

They want to the club really need them. If they really want to help, get rid of the debt, draft us a business strategy and then implement it.

Do you think the club really is "travelling ok", Doc?

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

Exactly why Ruffy (among others) needs to excuse himself and go focus on making another billion.

Lets look objectively at the Herald Sun Article by Robinson:

1. Pratt initially endorsed ML as President and now is unhappy with the direction of the Club- Why now?
2. Given that Pratt is on the Board, why now is she concerned about the Club direction?
3. Newton invited by Pratt back to Club - why, given that Newton resigned at the end of last year?
4. John Elliott said to be appearing on the side lines for a push. Why is Elliott associated, given that in 2003 he resigned after seeing the votes against him to force him out?
5. Trainor reported to resign at next Board meeting after been Vice President and been on Board for 2 years - Why?
6. Why should Club Directors including Pratt be concerned about Mathiesons comments given that Mathieson puts serious money in the Club?
7. Who at the Club is briefing the Herald Sun?

not at all, but I reckon there are board members who think everything is fine.

Restructure.
Merge.
Relocate.
Fold.

Pick one of these and do it soon please CFC. I'm not going through another 14 years of this shit.

_________________
I hope Essendon* folds.

I don't - but the board members do.

As I posted a couple of pages ago - this is a numbers game. Pure and simple. And it's all about what side gets ultimate control. There's a few scenarios that could play out - one of which is Mark LoGuidice actually not becoming President...or serving a very short Presidency. And that could happen if Richard Newton returns to the board and the Pratt faction having no confidence in LoGuidice. And by no confidence I mean making them look bad. Coming in and saying this was a mistake and this should have been done differently and we're going to do this, this and this...

...and if they are going to do this, this and this - that means they have to spend money. And if the Pratt's want to do this, this and this as well - then it becomes a poker game and both sides are all-in. And that's not a bad scenario for the club to be in.

We (members) might even get a vote! But the Blues are on the nose in a few circles. And for people who have gone through life thinking their shit doesn't stink - the last thing they want is for others to see that their shit really does stink (even though we've known this for some time).

It's getting exciting. At the end of the day (apologies GWS) - an Oligarch will still assume control. They're not giving up without a fight. Mathieson wants his turn in the sun (control), the Pratt's are clinging onto the notion that they can still leave a positive legacy.

Sadly there is no Frank Underwood pulling strings as chief whip or Vice-President. It's not that organised at the top.

My answers are just personal opinion...

1. Pratt initially endorsed ML as President and now is unhappy with the direction of the Club- Why now?
Now that Trainor has gone, Mathieson's no longer have the numbers. She was a touch early to give up control.
2. Given that Pratt is on the Board, why now is she concerned about the Club direction?
She's always been concerned with direction - but she's not strategic. This isn't her forte.
3. Newton invited by Pratt back to Club - why, given that Newton resigned at the end of last year?
His position was believed to be untenable post the failed deals with the footballers. His inclusion gives Pratts the numbers
4. John Elliott said to be appearing on the side lines for a push. Why is Elliott associated, given that in 2003 he resigned after seeing the votes against him to force him out?
Don't believe everything you read.
5. Trainor reported to resign at next Board meeting after been Vice President and been on Board for 2 years - Why?
It'll no doubt all come out in the wash-up. Watch this space.
6. Why should Club Directors including Pratt be concerned about Mathiesons comments given that Mathieson puts serious money in the Club?
Because he isn't on the board anymore, because he wants Swann gone, because it gives notion that the Pratts aren't in control
7. Who at the Club is briefing the Herald Sun?[/quote]
Unlikely to be a board member...but many people have access to people who know the goings on of the club. It's only one degree of separation.

Pratt Pratt Pratt!
Beat it

Do any of the board have a forte? Beyond being wealthy, that is? I would love to know what Pratt's strength is - certainly it isn't membership.

You've said some interesting things about Trainor, and Fahour's experience is public record.

The two people who have built their own careers in modern times are the ones pushed to the side. What a fantastic bunch.

It's time for a broom. Get rid of the whole lot of them, the Pratts and the Matthiesons. A board of 7 which is unaligned to external parties. Develop a business model that doesn't rely on handouts from wealthy individuals/families, and that includes weening ourselves off Matthieson's pokies, which won't be an easy task.

How this comes about, of course, is the big question. I suspect that ultimately, it may only happen if the members find a way for their voices to be heard, a la the EGM in 2002. The members clearly want change. It's time, somehow, for the members to be heard.

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

I always liked Greg Lee. He is an astute business man and bleeds navy blue. AFAIK not aligned with the oligarchs and thus limited influence. Easy to engage when you meet him and comes across as a genuine guy. Been surprised he has lasted as long as he has.

_________________
TC suffers from the social media illness - the death of respect and constructive discourse by keyboard.