TalkingCarlton :: View topic - No to Fahour , for now

At the club's recent annual general meeting, Pratt vowed he would remain in the top job and not be pressured out.

The billionaire businessman's hold on the club presidency has been under fierce scrutiny since his cardboard company, Visy, was fined $36 million over an illegal price-fixing cartel.

Why, post-Pratt, do we need a billionaire at the helm anyway?

Wouldn't it be better to have a former-player with some business nous?

It's believed his No. 1 priority would remain the bank, but that Carlton could expect to benefit from his powerful business network, which included billionaire casino mogul James Packer.

great rid of some trash off the board like wilson and carr next year to get Fahour on

If the board is to be reduced in size to about 8, I really don't see a place for Simon Wilson. Legal advice can be purchased as needed; a board member needs to bring contacts, sponsorship and business accumen.

Most QC's (despite being very good at what they do) wouldn't know the first thing about running a business.

If we really wanted a legal presence on the board, a better option would be a senior partner at a major firm, not a wig.

JohnM wrote:

Yes because senior partners at major firms aren't subject to billable hours targets and the demands of the firm partnership, leaving them lots of time to devote to the club. And what makes you think a partner at a major law firm will know alot more about running a business than a QC? They would probably be equally blank. But they're not there to know how to run a business, they're there for legal issues. Pratt/Newton/ De lutis etc are there to know how to run a business. Just like Bear and Sticks are there because they know about football.

And in my opinion Wilson is the best place to be the one to give legal advice on the current board. I don't uhdnerstand why people on this site are so harsh on him.

Rhys26 wrote:

great rid of some trash off the board like wilson and carr next year to get Fahour on

Why do you want to get rid of Wilson. While we do not want a board full of lawyers, I still think we can definitely use one. Wilson, as a QC, should stay in my opinion. He's done a pretty good job this year, and has been promoting the club for over a decade.

Barack Obama wrote:

Rhys26 wrote:

great rid of some trash off the board like wilson and carr next year to get Fahour on

If he were a decent lawyer he would have had a crack at the AFL last year regarding our missed priority pick.
The guy is dead wood....move on

..and I'm yet to hear one credible argument in his favour.

Being a QC doesnt make someone a quality football club board member. As you previously stated BO, Pratt could finance an army of QCs if we needed one.
It would appear that the board is too large and cumbersome to function effectively. Unless Simon Wilson has some hidden skills other than being a QC, he should be thanked for his contribution and move along.

"There are a few numbers on the board - a hangover from the Graham Smorgon days - so we'll work through that in the New Year."

Perhaps a large board can function effectively in some circumstances but the following quote from Swann indicates otherwise.

Quote:

"There are a few numbers on the board - a hangover from the Graham Smorgon days - so we'll work through that in the New Year."

I'm sure that any current board members would be available to assist and offer their services as required. They shouldnt need to be an elected board member to be of value to the club.

Barack Obama wrote:

Rhys26 wrote:

great rid of some trash off the board like wilson and carr next year to get Fahour on

If he were a decent lawyer he would have had a crack at the AFL last year regarding our missed priority pick.
The guy is dead wood....move on

Author:	grrofunger [ Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:11 am ]
Post subject:	No to Fahour , for now
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22986553%255E20322,00.html

Author:	Kaptain Kouta [ Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:28 am ]
Post subject:
This bit made me giggle: Quote: At the club's recent annual general meeting, Pratt vowed he would remain in the top job and not be pressured out. The billionaire businessman's hold on the club presidency has been under fierce scrutiny since his cardboard company, Visy, was fined $36 million over an illegal price-fixing cartel. Oohhh, Fatprick's after me...I'm under such fierce scrutiny.....somebody save me.... FFS

Author:	Car17on [ Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:32 am ]
Post subject:
Why, post-Pratt, do we need a billionaire at the helm anyway? Wouldn't it be better to have a former-player with some business nous?

Author:	grrofunger [ Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:35 am ]
Post subject:
would have thought said billionaire had a fair bit of business nous?

Author:	Car17on [ Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:39 am ]
Post subject:
I was referring to the next pres

TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

No to Fahour , for now http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19569	Page 1 of 3

Author:	grrofunger [ Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:41 am ]
Post subject:
and i was referring to fahour

Author:	Car17on [ Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:44 am ]
Post subject:
snap!

Author:	Rhys26 [ Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:49 am ]
Post subject:
great rid of some trash off the board like wilson and carr next year to get Fahour on

Author:	Wildman [ Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:54 am ]
Post subject:
p(12)terg wrote: Why, post-Pratt, do we need a billionaire at the helm anyway? Wouldn't it be better to have a former-player with some business nous? I think it's this part of the article that explains the reason they want someone like Fahour: Quote: It's believed his No. 1 priority would remain the bank, but that Carlton could expect to benefit from his powerful business network, which included billionaire casino mogul James Packer. It's not only his business skills they want from him but his contacts in the business world, the people he does business with that he can help persuade to sponser the club.

Author:	Barack Obama [ Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:
Rhys26 wrote: great rid of some trash off the board like wilson and carr next year to get Fahour on Why do you want to get rid of Wilson. While we do not want a board full of lawyers, I still think we can definitely use one. Wilson, as a QC, should stay in my opinion. He's done a pretty good job this year, and has been promoting the club for over a decade.

Author:	JohnM [ Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:
If the board is to be reduced in size to about 8, I really don't see a place for Simon Wilson. Legal advice can be purchased as needed; a board member needs to bring contacts, sponsorship and business accumen. Most QC's (despite being very good at what they do) wouldn't know the first thing about running a business. If we really wanted a legal presence on the board, a better option would be a senior partner at a major firm, not a wig.

Author:	Barack Obama [ Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:33 pm ]
Post subject:
JohnM wrote: If the board is to be reduced in size to about 8, I really don't see a place for Simon Wilson. Legal advice can be purchased as needed; a board member needs to bring contacts, sponsorship and business accumen. Most QC's (despite being very good at what they do) wouldn't know the first thing about running a business. If we really wanted a legal presence on the board, a better option would be a senior partner at a major firm, not a wig. Yes because senior partners at major firms aren't subject to billable hours targets and the demands of the firm partnership, leaving them lots of time to devote to the club. And what makes you think a partner at a major law firm will know alot more about running a business than a QC? They would probably be equally blank. But they're not there to know how to run a business, they're there for legal issues. Pratt/Newton/ De lutis etc are there to know how to run a business. Just like Bear and Sticks are there because they know about football. And in my opinion Wilson is the best place to be the one to give legal advice on the current board. I don't uhdnerstand why people on this site are so harsh on him.

Author:	Andain [ Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:
Barack Obama wrote: JohnM wrote: If the board is to be reduced in size to about 8, I really don't see a place for Simon Wilson. Legal advice can be purchased as needed; a board member needs to bring contacts, sponsorship and business accumen. Most QC's (despite being very good at what they do) wouldn't know the first thing about running a business. If we really wanted a legal presence on the board, a better option would be a senior partner at a major firm, not a wig. Yes because senior partners at major firms aren't subject to billable hours targets and the demands of the firm partnership, leaving them lots of time to devote to the club. And what makes you think a partner at a major law firm will know alot more about running a business than a QC? They would probably be equally blank. But they're not there to know how to run a business, they're there for legal issues. Pratt/Newton/ De lutis etc are there to know how to run a business. Just like Bear and Sticks are there because they know about football. And in my opinion Wilson is the best place to be the one to give legal advice on the current board. I don't uhdnerstand why people on this site are so harsh on him. Every board need a lawyer. Ralph Carr on the otherhand...

Author:	JohnM [ Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:11 pm ]
Post subject:
Ever sat within earshot of him at the footy BO?

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Rhys26 [ Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:02 pm ]
Post subject:
Barack Obama wrote: Rhys26 wrote: great rid of some trash off the board like wilson and carr next year to get Fahour on Why do you want to get rid of Wilson. While we do not want a board full of lawyers, I still think we can definitely use one. Wilson, as a QC, should stay in my opinion. He's done a pretty good job this year, and has been promoting the club for over a decade. If he were a decent lawyer he would have had a crack at the AFL last year regarding our missed priority pick. The guy is dead wood....move on

Author:	Barack Obama [ Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:42 am ]
Post subject:
Rhys26 wrote: Barack Obama wrote: Rhys26 wrote: great rid of some trash off the board like wilson and carr next year to get Fahour on Why do you want to get rid of Wilson. While we do not want a board full of lawyers, I still think we can definitely use one. Wilson, as a QC, should stay in my opinion. He's done a pretty good job this year, and has been promoting the club for over a decade. If he were a decent lawyer he would have had a crack at the AFL last year regarding our missed priority pick. The guy is dead wood....move on Yes that is the barometer for determining if he is a good lawyer or not. The fact he is a QC (only the most elite lawyers make QC) obviously means nothing in light of the fact he couldn't "have a crack at the AFl last year regarding our missed priority pick". Also, if we could get that priority pick back through legal action, we could have done it this year. I'm sure Pratt would have been happy to finance an army of QCs on 10k a day to get it. But there is probably no legal ground to stand on, due to the system of contracts the AFL uses to ensure that the priority pick /draft selection rules stand up in court. Ryan you have yet to make one credible argument against Wilson.

Author:	Barack Obama [ Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:53 am ]
Post subject:
Blue Vain wrote: ..and I'm yet to hear one credible argument in his favour. Being a QC doesnt make someone a quality football club board member. As you previously stated BO, Pratt could finance an army of QCs if we needed one. It would appear that the board is too large and cumbersome to function effectively. Unless Simon Wilson has some hidden skills other than being a QC, he should be thanked for his contribution and move along. That's fair enough if you don't think we need a lawyer on the board. I guess it is hard for us to know how much each board member is contributing/what they can bring, and therefore which should be removed. My point is why should Simon be chopped off instead of others? It just appears some posters on here have personal issues against him. Personally, if the board needs to be cut, I have every faith in our President to make the right call on who should stay and who should go. (and who should possibly come in). The one thing I also want to raise for discussion is is a big board so bad? I think the board have done an excellent job thisy ear. Is there anny need to cut it? Board members don't get paid, they volunteer there time. So why is it bad to have too many?

Author:	Blue Vain [ Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:00 am ]
Post subject:
Perhaps a large board can function effectively in some circumstances but the following quote from Swann indicates otherwise. Quote: "There are a few numbers on the board - a hangover from the Graham Smorgon days - so we'll work through that in the New Year." I'm sure that any current board members would be available to assist and offer their services as required. They shouldnt need to be an elected board member to be of value to the club.

Author:	Synbad [ Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:20 am ]
Post subject:
Blue Vain wrote: Perhaps a large board can function effectively in some circumstances but the following quote from Swann indicates otherwise. Quote: "There are a few numbers on the board - a hangover from the Graham Smorgon days - so we'll work through that in the New Year." I'm sure that any current board members would be available to assist and offer their services as required. They shouldnt need to be an elected board member to be of value to the club. Some of them have refused to step off... some have received phone calls to move away... but you can bet youre bottom dollar the real pressure has not begun yet... Amazing how some of them think theyre crucial...

Author:	DenimUndies [ Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:06 am ]
Post subject:
Rhys26 wrote: Barack Obama wrote: Rhys26 wrote: great rid of some trash off the board like wilson and carr next year to get Fahour on Why do you want to get rid of Wilson. While we do not want a board full of lawyers, I still think we can definitely use one. Wilson, as a QC, should stay in my opinion. He's done a pretty good job this year, and has been promoting the club for over a decade. If he were a decent lawyer he would have had a crack at the AFL last year regarding our missed priority pick. The guy is dead wood....move on psml .. the ignorance of it all ....... what makes you think that the price to pay to achieve the objective was worth the potential outcome ffs.. have a lay down and read a book