bluechucky wrote:
who cares what sex they are?
some people?
| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| New Blood on Board http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27506 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Blue Vain [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | New Blood on Board |
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/newsar ... fault.aspx |
|
| Author: | bluegirl72 [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
Blue Vain wrote: http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4311/newsid/89800/default.aspx Well you'd hate to ruin the look with a woman on Board I guess. |
|
| Author: | bluechucky [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
who cares what sex they are? |
|
| Author: | bluegirl72 [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
bluechucky wrote: who cares what sex they are? some people? |
|
| Author: | fraser murphy [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
bluechucky wrote: who cares what sex they are? Chicks obviously. 
|
|
| Author: | woof [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
Who cares whether you get to vote for them? |
|
| Author: | Cazzesman [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
After reading some of the posts since Saturday perhaps it's best the huddled masses not vote on important matters  Regards Cazzesman |
|
| Author: | camel [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
All the best to the new guys, I hope they do a great job and bring new ideas to the table.  Although, you sometimes have to wonder why we bother with elections, haha. |
|
| Author: | woof [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
It is an interesting situation. I can see the merit in boards hand picking people to join them but it was not that long ago that a board full of sheep got us in big trouble. |
|
| Author: | DocSherrin III [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
I'm going to hazard a guess here and say that I think that less than 2% of TalkingCarlton members actually vote anyway, so their arguments are null and void. |
|
| Author: | Megaman [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
Wondering if this announcement will be greeted with a "shock and awe" campaign or with rapturous applause from the usual suspects.. |
|
| Author: | teagueyubeauty [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
Megaman wrote: Wondering if this announcement will be greeted with a "shock and awe" campaign or with rapturous applause from the usual suspects.. 
|
|
| Author: | JohnM [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
bluegirl72 wrote: Blue Vain wrote: http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4311/newsid/89800/default.aspx Well you'd hate to ruin the look with a woman on Board I guess. Just did a quick check. Female board members at the various clubs: Adelaide, 0. Brisbane, 1. Carl, 0. Coll, 1. Ess, 1 (I think.. can't find anything on their site) Fremantle, ? (can't find anything on their site) Geel, 1. Haw, 1. Melb, 1. NM, 0. Port, 0. Rich, 1. St K, 0. Syd, 1. WC, 1. WB, 2. Interesting that clubs with female board members have the solitary one. Which tends to suggest that the appointment is a token one. I'm sure those selected are well-credentialled (well, question marks on Camplin at Collingwood) but it's highly suspicious that all these clubs seem to stop at one. A bit like "we need a female board member, who's the best option?" rather than picking the best people and letting the sexes fall accordingly. Seems to suggest that clubs are keen to tick the 'female board member' box. A notable exception is the Bulldogs. |
|
| Author: | Navy Blue Horse [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
Synbad missed out again? |
|
| Author: | bluegirl72 [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
camelboy wrote: All the best to the new guys, I hope they do a great job and bring new ideas to the table. Although, you sometimes have to wonder why we bother with elections, haha. geez...stating the obvious!  suck  hey.... why wasn't Dave Gilmour elected? That'd add some real atmosphere to those dreary meetings.
|
|
| Author: | DownUnderChick [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
Them's a lot of Board Members. |
|
| Author: | gerry atric [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
Well we really are a democracy of the members aren't we. How many on the board now 15? If these guys are really committed how about they insist on putting themselves up for a vote. This suggests that if you are a Pratt relative, democracy doesn't apply, which further suggests that we are still very beholden to Pratt family money which is an issue in terms on independent decision making. For instance if Jeannie says Elliott is still a family friend and she'd like him back at the club which way do we jump? It also indicates we have too many on the Board and some are deadwood. Maybe we should spill the positions and get the board down to 10 and the new guys could then be voted in and the deadwood voted out. I like the idea of talented and wealthy people on the board, but really dislike the idea of bypassing the election process. Hopefully one of these guys is a president type and will be able to give Sticks a rest. One of the problems of the Elliott era was an erosion of responsibility by the members allowing the Elliott junta to go the way of all good banana dictatorships. |
|
| Author: | Captain Dan [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
Bet a female board member at Carlton would be negatively associated with the "can you smell what the Blues are cooking" campaign by the Herald Sun. We'll get accused of being sexist, old fashioned "get back in the kitchen" types. 
|
|
| Author: | JK [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
We have an insanely large board and really need to implement contingencies like sunset clauses of four years immediately. No problem with the two new additions, its just that we now have way too many cooks. |
|
| Author: | Captain Dan [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New Blood on Board |
Josh Kaplan wrote: its just that we now have way too many cooks. The 'fish rots at the head' tag line could be replaced with "too many cooks spoil the broth"
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|