Sinners that has to be the BIGGEST load of crap I have read on this site for quite some time.

Are you seriously saying that people who run family businesses are unaccountable?

That people that put THEIR money into the business, that lose pretty much everything if they fail. GET REAL

Just as well you don't have to be accountable to post in this site.

I fully understand why he didn't lay a roadmap on his acceptance speech and thank god he didn't. Most respectful people would understand as well, think about it

I do however expect that he will need to make a clear statement of his vision and ideas for dragging this club into the modern era in the coming weeks and I would like to see what size board he feels is optimal. If I was president my first order of business would be to cut the dead wood out of the board, we need doers not voters, if you don't bring a required skillset to the board, then bye bye.

I would also like to review the KPI's set for each department from CEO down, my guess is that the bar is not set very high. If you don't challenge the KPI's then the only outcome is that the next premiership is getting further and further away.

I will await to see how Mark handles the transition before I pass judgment, this week is day 1 and I wish him all the best leading the once mighty Blues back from the wilderness.

A big relief that Tom Elliot has nothing to do with the running of this club. Things could be a lot worse!

_________________
I am as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!!!

He's not 'President' until June. Though if you ask me I reckon it's more quasi-President. Good luck to him though...he's going to need it.

Generally you are correct. CEOs are protected in the corporate world, unless the obviously do something illegal or criminal.

Board directors get their bonus shares and freebies over a long period and can even leave a corporation totally insolvent or in receivership. They then walk away with millions and move to the next board. The workers of the corporate usually lose far more in the corporate world.

In a family owned business its common that even the family assets like the family home and holiday house are used as security to obtain loans etc. if the business goes down, sometimes everything is lost.

But in fairness to Synbad, he may be referring to accountability with respect to the business or corporation they work for, rather than to the carlton football club. The use the club for their own benefit. Like corporate toy or tax dodge

_________________
Vice President, International Extreme Sarcasm Society (IESS)

Mark if u read this 1st assignment is fix the recruiting departmentanyway good luck with the position.

I understand what Synners was implying, however he is completely wrong to use the current board as a generalisation for how the affairs of family corporations are run.

This issue with the current board (and any large board/management structure) is that with so many members there is a disconnect from responsibility. With 5-6 people, they all share the blame for poor decisions as there isn't anywhere to hide. Once you get 10 or more then it's hard to work out which board members are participating actively in the board and which are relying on others to do the work and are just there to vote and look good on their CV. My impression is that we have quite a few of these on our current board

I understand that this is a voluntary role and people are giving up time to participate, however if you take on the role, then you make a commitment to perform the role to the best of your abilities and if you can't then the honorable thing to do is step aside and let some fresh blood take over the baton.

Private companies are only accountable to themselves.
Who tells the Pratt's what's required in Visy Corp?
I'm not talking about doing things illegal but making choices that suit themselves.
What's so wrong about that statement?
You disagree?
Take Visys corporate problems.
Richard was the one that was flamed. It was his own decision.

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Nobody tells the Pratt's at visy or the Mathewson's that they are wrong. Nobody questions them.
Nobody tells the Frieds that they are responsible to them.
Same with mark.
These guys do things without accountability to share holders etc
You're not going to deny that are you?
I think you're about to piss in my pocket aren't you?

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Some good discussion on MLG on Offsiders last weekend. Prefaced by a bit of a love in after beating the Eagles...

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/offsiders/c ... 992755.htm

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

In fact even publicly listed companies aren't really accountable to their shareholders.

The shares are heavily concentrated in a few hands.

If you look at the top 20 shareholders at Qantas for example, they are all other corporates, banks, super funds etc.

In fact the top 3 shareholders at Qantas control over 50% of the stock, so what they say goes.

Even Alan Joyce who is Qantas CEO, is listed in the top 20 shareholders. Now there is a conflict of interest. If Alan Joyce sacks staff and increases profits, he directly benefits from that decision. He also gets bonuses.

The corporates and the private elites don't really answer to anyone. The game is rigged in their favour and they control the puppets in the government.

When some one like Rupert Murdoch can influence the outcome of an election then you know what sort of tyrannical fascist Corpocracy we live in.

A footy club is so easy to control, because the members are usually very passionate and the oligarchs know exactly how to exploit this passion (or weakness as they see it)

Now you know why Sticks was at the helm for so long, even though he probably didn't even want the job, and was certainly not suited for it anyway.

He was used for a very specific reason.

_________________
Vice President, International Extreme Sarcasm Society (IESS)

And your point is ???

Large corporations, public or private are accountable to their shareholders to the point of company performance.

They are not required to report to shareholders of every decision (do things) that they make, nor should they be expected to. Its the result of those decisions that they are accountable for.

Now in public companies the result or poor decisions results in drop in share price, in a family company that results in money out of their own back pockets. So who is more accountable in your mind

yes .. exactly.... !!!

so if someone who is not used to report to anybody but themselves end up running something that doesnt belong to them... lets just say the Carlton Footy Club.. and they make million dollar mistakes..
Lets say its coaching contracts.... because theyre not used to the same governance issues as people have come from an accountable environment... they can make all kinds of decisions on the back of what they personally like.

i like Ratten.. he will be coach...
i hate ratten ill sack him
i now like mick...
ill sack mick...

i like hughes....
no i dont like hughes anymore....
i like swann.. hes a good bloke....

you see the problem???

etc etc etc

or you dont see the problem steve??

or you can see the problem .. but ur pretending you cant.

its rather obvious

if it were there own money would they have made a guy like ratten with no experience in charge of their own company sector whatever?
or swann....??

its not their money.. they dont even understand this business.... and yet they make decisions built on little governance and process that affects us

because its not their money and theyre not used to reporting to anyone

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Now sinners you have let your opinions of the board cloud your argument.

Our problem is not the accountability of our board, but the members themselves.

How many are on the board to preserve their interests vs those that are there to run the business of the CFC? My guess would be most.

By your very definition, Frank Costa should never have been a board member because he is not accountable to anyone other than himself, would you not welcome Frank to the board?

Perhaps we should be more focused on conflicts of interest as being the barrier to becoming a board member and less focused on whether they are from private or public backgrounds.

ah yes but costa wasnt afraid of an indie review though was he?

im not talking about geelong ... im talking about our particular problems that run for over a long period of time and now hijacked by oligarchs.

youre confsing what costs has done at geelong and what our blokes do.

thats so frustrating to me when people do that.
costa resigned ...after a glorious era leaving them in good hands

our blokes stay and stay and stay.... because our club is theirs
costs never treated geelong as his

are u following steve?

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

I think he is out to ruin the club too!

_________________
dane's trolling again

you dont have to be out to ruin the club to ruin the club too....

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Finally

Like I said, doesn't matter what background our board comes from its WHY they are on the board that's our problem.

There is nothing wrong with having board members from family companies, the same principles of selection applies to both. What strength do they have in their profession and how will that strength be applied in the Carlton board.

Take a look at our current team (too big to be called a board)

Kernahan - Footballer
Pratt - Philanthropist
Logiudice - Property developer
Trainor - Entrepreneur
Clarke - Barrister
Fried - Astute businessman
Fahour - Astute businessman
Gleeson - Footballer
Geminder - Pratt family
Lee - Businessman
Sayers - CEO research/legal company
Mathieson - Pokies

With no disrespect to those currently on the board, but I would like to see some people from a marketing/advertising background, successful business people from companies that are in very competitive industries (pokies, postal, cardboard/packaging are more of monopolies) or even tech/media.

sounds fantastic that board... but unaccountable

who pays for the mistakes of the board ???

the club does... not them...

as for the pratts being philanthropists.

if u steal hundreds of millions from australians i suppose you can give a small % back and say the words "philanthropy is fun"

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

I think you missed my point in respect to current board.

The current board lacks people from highly competitive businesses. Virtually no-one our current board has to think outside the square in order to grow their business, they are either from service businesses or monopolies.

This is why our club is always reactive and often misses the opportunities, whilst other clubs are so much more advanced than us in areas such as marketing, membership, branding, sponsorship etc.

I won't comment on your comments regarding the Pratts as I understand the nature of doing business too well to come to your summation of the Visy saga.