Interesting comments re: the mentality behind running service orientated businesses and monopolies...

My gut feel is thinking outside the square/box is more of a personal trait that is spread across all types of businesses and can be as important and prevalent in service type businesses and monopolies

I tend to focus on the motives behind directors becoming involved in sporting club like Carlton.

If it's just a part time gimicky type motive, treating the club as a toy or a stepping stone to other end goals, then the results will not only be predictable but mediocre at best.

This is precisely why the recently formed Young Carlton Professionals and their Think tank, received so much criticism that the thread was locked. We still dont know what its agenda is, why there is restricted membership based upon age and this vague category called "professional". But it fits into the Clubs general working model of exclusivity and shutting out members from knowing whats going on and why. Our new President is yet to outline his long term vision. I am sure there is one - why isnt it communicated to members and the public?

_________________
Vice President, International Extreme Sarcasm Society (IESS)

I think you may have misunderstood my comment, I didn't say that the board members can't think outside the square, I said that they don't HAVE to think outside the square to GROW THEIR BUSINESS (please don't think I am being rude, just emphasizing the context)

They very well may challenge the status quo, however I have yet to see any evidence as yet that suggests to me that we are emerging from our slumber.

You did say that our board lacks directors from highly competitive businesses, ie the service sector and monopolies, and so they don't NEED to think outside the square.

Why would you assume that the service industries and monopolies don't have competitive environments? In any case, the Mathesons as well as the Pratts don't run monopolies, their businesses may be big but not strictly monopolies. Oligopolies or duopolies perhaps in the case of Visy and Amcor.

I still think its all due to personal agendas and motives for joining a sporting organisation at board level, as well as the culture within the club. Fahour for example seems to on the bench very game. Why is he been shut out of all of this?

The two commercial areas in Australia that are dominated by two or several corporate players are the supermarket industry (Coles and woolworths) and the banking sector.

Virtually a complete dominance of their respective markets and yet it isn't enough. They still want more. They are still thinking outside the square.

It's the way the Corpocracy works. Its a form of fascism

_________________
Vice President, International Extreme Sarcasm Society (IESS)

I understand where you're coming from - but I think you should look at Luke Sayers and what he's done as CEO of PWC. Ryan Trainor also very capable of ingenuity and thinking outside the square. They have the runs on the board at business level - but are hamstrung at board level. Time to throw the shackles off and those shackles are the Pratts' and Mathiesons'. No need to cut the entire board - LoGuidice can stay as President - but the Oligarchs and the dead wood must go.

So that would equate to Pratt, Gleeson, Kernahan, Mathieson, Fried, Clarke, Lee and Geminder gone. I'm sure most out there are pretty happy to work with LoGuidice, Trainor, Fahour and Sayers who should all be given a chance to show what they can do without the factional influence. Need at least 2 more (as per the Constitutional requirements). Need to decide what the optimal board number is. I think between 6-9 and as Steve said - get a few on board who HAVE to think OUTSIDE the square and are prepared to put some time into the football club. Might even be able to get Harold Mitchell on for some guidance. As Kochie has shown at Port - the off-field turnaround can be swift and it can have quick results.

sounds great, but dear doc,
how..
how move out those that need to go?

_________________
That’s not a political statement — it’s a harsh reality, and we must act,” she said. “He is a clear and present danger to the things that keep us strong and free. I support impeachment.”

From the members' email...

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

Well said Jay Mark!

"My approach as President will be to provide the stability and governance to unite all aspects of our club that will enable us to flourish and succeed."

I dunno but I sought of read that as his approach is just to keep the status quo re both the Pratts and the Mathiesons money coming in... ?

Time will tell. He needs to head-hunt a CEO first.

Sticks? Makes sense. No longer bound by that pesky constitution.

_________________
BLUES 2010: PAV AND JUDD = FLAGS. DOING IT FOR THE LOVE OF DICK PRATT.

HAVE YOU SIGNED UP FOR TALKINGCARLTON SUPERCOACH 2009 YET?

I wonder how Koshie was "thinking out of the box" when he inherited a financial mess at Port with what most experts described as a poor list in 2012?

Demanded honesty and work ethic from everyone in the organisation, got hold of a down to earth smart coach in Hinkley and everything went upwards from there - from the very first training session that Hinkley took.

Yes ladies and gentlemen - honesty and work ethic is thinking out of the box. Revolutionary!

We at carlton however form YCPs with Think Tanks, and have sausage sizzles and book tours.

But it does look as though the penny has dropped with the players ladies and gentlemen.

Apparently Brock Maclean relayed a message to some of the players in the last quarter against the eagles, that the teams workrate was not good enough....

The Great Robert Wiley noticed this drop in workrate at the 10 minute mark of the last quarter but kept it to himself on the boundary line. Brock had to interrogate Wiley to extract this wisdom.

Obviously the workrate in the first 4 rounds of the season was satisfactory but just fell slightly in the last quarter against the eagles.

_________________
Vice President, International Extreme Sarcasm Society (IESS)

They need to be told! It's really as simple as that. LoGuidice is President now - we'll know his true colors soon enough if he maintains the status quo. I'd like to see a few step down who have been there a long time... let others have a go. It's a stale board. They might think otherwise because they all get along ok - but they're in a bubble and they need to understand that they're operating as if it's 1990. LoGuidice could sink or swim. He could be a great President - but it's really up to him. I've been in front of Bruce Mathieson before - he brings an entourage - mainly other fatties in suits - but you're immediately drawn to Bruce's gold...rings, necklaces, cufflinks....he's like a white man's Mr.T. LoGuidice will need big balls to change the Mathieson model....hope he can cut the umbilical chord...but again - it's up to him.

Does anyone really think we will be sitting here in a years time saying- Wow what an innovative,dynamic Board we`ve got now?

_________________
Cheats never prosper (except in the AFL)

dont u just love that old chestnut!

its the mcg and the good friday footy and pokies and the youth think tank

how about something different???

something like visy park matches or something .....

_________________
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.

Don't give them any ideas.

_________________
I hope Essendon* folds.

Carlton should put its foot down hard and threaten legal action if we do not get a strong mcg deal

crappyhad is wrecking our club and WE MUST GET OUT....

Make a stand Mark!

....we should end up with something better at the MCG seeing as one of the AFL's blue chip licenses will be trashed very soon

Someone must fill in the void after the carnage

_________________
Vice President, International Extreme Sarcasm Society (IESS)

Every time I see that MCG line trotted out I just roll my eyes.

It's really not that big of a deal where we play, so long as the next deal at Etihad, for however many games, is substantially better than the current one.

Maybe my finger is so far removed from the pulse I've missed this groundswell of anti-Etihad fervour that is driving the club to move to the 'G. Do that many Members genuinely care? Do that many supporters opt not to join because we play less games at the 'G than they'd like? Is a move there going to result in a substantial spike in membership sales?

If that article is to be believed we've less work to do in access memberships than we do in providing more attractive non-access packages. And it's fair to say if you're buying a non-access membership you're probably not too fussed about where the games are played.

There was this notion flying around that we couldn't play or win at Etihad, remember? It was proffered as an excuse as to why we should move, rather than fix whatever the issue was that was leading to defeats. As an aside, more than anything that poor record at Etihad likely had more to do with the quality of opposition than any inability to play the ground, whatever that means. I recall us playing the majority of those matches against Etihad tenant teams who were fairly good at the time (Geelong, Hawthorn, St. Kilda among them).

It has seemed all along like a fairly half-hearted call to arms, one that the supporter base neither really cares about or is keen to properly engage.

If the Club feels they can offer a better product to members by moving to the 'G then fine. And by product its the whole package: seats, members areas and all that. I get this 'we deserve to play at the 'G' vibe, which, again, is nonsense. We don't deserve anything based on things that happened 20+ years ago.

Perhaps it's just the message itself I never warmed to. Maybe it needed to be simpler and less to do with aligning it or badging it as a return home of sorts:

"We want to offer the best gameday experience for our members and supporters, with a stadium agreement that is fair, reasonable and mutually beneficial for both the Club and venue.

It is out commitment to you to pursue agreements that are in the best interests of the Club financially, whilst at the same time allowing us to grow our supporter base.

We feel as though the best way to do this is by playing a greater number of our home matches at the best arena in the world, the MCG.

In order for the AFL to endorse this request and ensure we're in the strongest possible position to negotiate our upcoming stadium deal, we require more members..."

And so on and so forth.

_________________
Whatever happened to this club
I wish I understood
We used to be so strong
We used to be so good

spot on

the rest is popularism.. 2 extra games doesnt change the identity of this club

_________________
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.