Blue Sombrero wrote:
I don't understand why you don't want to help the club win #17 by contributing financially to it.
When people purchase a membership, they aren't thinking primarily of helping a club financially. They're looking to get access and/or a designated seat/area to football matches throughout a season. This year, a Collingwood supporting bogan on Bridge Rd can contribute financially to the club by pumping cash into an Electronic Gaming Machine at the Royal Oak - is he part of 'helping the club win #17?
I've never needed Carlton membership. If I were an MCC member why would I buy a separate membership? But my thought process during the clubs' troubled times
was to purchase a membership, be it social club or a 3-gamer. Over the last 2 years, I even got to choose where my money went. This is now no longer an option for supporters.
The club doesn't need my money. They made that choice for me.
Blue Sombrero wrote:
I am (was) a strategic planner and consultant but don't whinge because I didn't get to look at the draft of the club's strategic plan for comment.
I never said that. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I said it
should have been done. What I will say is that when Strategic Plans, feasibility studies or ROI's are being done/bidded for - most companies involved in Sports Consultancy know who is doing what. No one in the sports/government space knew who was doing the Carlton Strategic Plan. And that's because a company who hadn't done one in the sporting sphere was doing it and they hadn't put out a RFT.
For a lot of you - that's fine - and I've got no problem with the selection process here, but are you really happy that your money is being used to pay Greg Swanns' old mates? I'm probably preaching to the wrong crowd. But again...I don't get to choose where my money toward Carlton goes anymore.
Blue Sombrero wrote:
I think we can get too caught up in the politics of it all, regardless of how close we are to it, or how far away. If we concentrate on enjoying or lamenting the on-field performances and maybe dissecting them here from time to time, we would be better served.
Perhaps we do. But critiquing off-field performance is just as important as critiquing on-field stuff.
Blue Sombrero wrote:
Members of the club have the opportunity to vote for the board (when there is an opposed position up for grabs). If one isn't a voting member and hasn't voted, I think it's a bit rich criticizing the incumbents.
You've been in Mexico too long. Take a good look at the board. How many were voted in? Even the guy I would've voted in, Ryan Trainor, doesn't have to go through the election process. So members of this club don't necessarily have a vote. And some members voting rights have been taken away when the board decided to change the constitution. No formal apology, merely an 'oversight from the sub-committee' that worked on the changes. That was farcical, and if ever I needed confirmation of how the board was performing - that was it.