If it did, Fev would be still paying for the blues and about to break Sticks's goal kicking record

On talent alone Fev should be still playing - one of the all time carlton greats - genuine match winner

_________________
Vice President, International Extreme Sarcasm Society (IESS)

..we've been a dodgey club with suspect ethics and no soul for a long long time now, club and members.. ..like many others I was 'born' into it, but if I was new to it I wouldn't follow the blues.. ..the fact I still feel a sentimental sort of 'passion' for this mess shows that I'm just as conflicted and scatterbrained and questionable as the club.. ..we all deserve eachother..

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..

I wish I could go for another club. I really do. It's easier to follow another code all together.

The forum needs balance on where the board are at fault and not at fault.
Particularly on the question of a new president. Fahour was either not voted in or overlooked because of his unwillingness to comit more than a few hours a week. Its a job that requires 20 hours a week.

If you want to a cause of all our problems you might consider the word "power vacuum". There is a lack of quality people who want to be on the board. The is a vanilla group without football direction. They certainly have to get above a pass mark for improving the finances of the club but a fail on the football side. So who do you blame for that

SWAN
KERNAHAN
GLEESON

To me its a simple equation, keep the people who contribute:

1 pratt can stay because they pump money into the place and they were key in highlighting the poor coaching during the Ratten era
1 Mathieson Can stay because he has contributed
1 of the rest if he is a contributor

4 other people must be football oriented. Tell me Carlton people with good football brains pertaining to the sport or afl media or afl politics.

So the point of this post is it is very easy to scapegoat everyone with failure. Change is required but you need to take a balanced view.

Judging from the comments on TC we should have never let any players go ever,
and every player we retained we should have let go.

Everything's wrong, where do we start, do this do that, etc etc


I think I have come around to the way of thinking that the best way forward for our Club at the moment
(not the best thing for Geelong, not what Collingwood did, not what the Hawks did)
is to get a good leader at board level, who has a good working relationship with a good CEO.

I think we are actually a club that is willing to act to fix things (despite what many think),
but there is no cohesion or strategy or direction behind what we are doing.
So we go around in circles, running around like headless chooks trying to fix and re-fix everythin

If we get a good leadership team at the top then the direction will flow from that - including footy department, coaching structure, marketing etc.
You need direction and leadership from the top.
If the club has direction, then it will rub off on the players.

It happened at Port, and it will happen here.
We just need to break the incumbent stranglehold and get some fresh leadership in at the top.

Synbad,

And one more things. You should refrain from all the conspiracy theories about oligarchs and families taking over the club. Where is the evidence supporting that theory.

a) It is one of the largest football boards in the AFL
b) They were invited on
c) Anyone else can stand
d) All it needs is a credible alternative and their influence would diminish

This may be a fair point MJ, however what did they do after Ratten was removed? What about the process that appointed him in the first place.

What process did the club go through to recruit the next coach? What did they take into account when they appointed MM?

See it appears that the club went through little process assessing other candidates when it came to appointing the senior coach.

Just as Elliott went and appointed Pagan to try to appease the membership, the same has happened with Kernahan/Swann and Malthouse.

The same old sterile process of getting the cheque book out - no careful consideration.

They were so fearful of a membership drop off if they recruited a 'no name' that they went a did what they know best - went after a big name with little thought as to whether he was the best man for the job.

It's all about shoring up their own positions.

The worst part of all of it is they don't learn! They don't look back at their own decision making and see how they [REDACTED] things up.

_________________
"You are being watched. The government has a secret system. A machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it." - Finch

Currently Melbourne, and probably Essendon* are in the market for an assistant to step up and take over the reigns from the incumbent once they've had enough. This after four new coaches were appointed last year.

What is our succession plan for life after Malthouse? Have talks even been held on the subject?
Have we decided that there is no-one currently on the market right now that meets the criteria? What criteria?

Worries me that sooner or later Mick will lose interest and we'll end up with Laidley as he just happened to be in the right place at the right time. "Geez, boys,...he did an apprenticeship at Collingwood!"

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

HAVE YOU SIGNED UP FOR TALKINGCARLTON SUPERCOACH 2009 YET?

Do it then.

_________________
dane's trolling again

i have a fair grasp on how the club runs....
Oligarchs rule!!!
a)Yes ...oligarchs dnt care how many are in the board... they only care that they control the board.. clearly they do...
b) yes they were invited on they didnt go through the proper process.... they were invited on by others who couldnt do the job .. so they can come in and donate... therefore comtrolling influence of the board...
c) people dont stand to create a shit fight... just like Pratt never stood o fight Smorgon... so youre talking nonsense.
d) see above....

E*) Why did you call it a conspiracy theory???
is that to discredit what i am saying as if i am saying martians landed or something? Dismiss it as some kind of luny stuff???It the truth.. there is no conspiracy theory in truth!!!

Ill tell you what you have just done in that sentence.. youve riled me... from now on ill be focussing more on the board and its Oligarchical practices than you can imagine.
If its not an Oligarchy it is open to transparency... lets see if how they feel about an independent review of the footy club shall we???

The last few invitations onto the board have come with the blessings of Mathiesons and Pratts.
How is that not an Oligarchy????

_________________
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.

yes.. there is always another cardboard cut-out member of the Visy kind ...that can replace him.. right???

_________________
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.

keep the people who contributed?
Why???

Fringe benefit is a board seat if you have a rich uncle or father in law?
Explain why we need to keep them on the board because they are related to someone who contributed???... and how thay isnt the road to Oligarchy.. though we know were there already....

If people get positions because they fund things... ala Gutnik.. how is that not an Oligarchy?
You see they are on the board for influence because they paid... the more they pay the more influence they have... so they run the club.
Contril the purse strings you control the organization... thats an Oligarchy actually....

_________________
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.

Michael Jezz.. today were going to debate whether this club is now in the hands of the Oligarchs.
Youre going to illustrate how the club is still really the club of the people.
Go ahead....

Give it your best shot..... and again i urge you to think very carefully about whatever points youre going to make....

You know why i stimulate arguments? Because they open up the kind of dialogue i crave..youll give me points and ill rip those apart.. and how how youre completely misguided.. its much better than if i gave myself all the questions and answered them myself all the time.

Youre going to help allow me to fill in the gaps for people to see whats going on

So on with it.....

Why is this club an open transparent club free of influence from Pratt family and Mathieson family.. using Sticks for a stable board (ie status quo)....

This is going to be fun......

Lets see how you stack up!!!!

_________________
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.

Well Synbad the above terms of debate are exactly why your methods are annoying. You make good points but change the terms of an argument midstream to promote your case.
The argument is Are the Matheison & Pratt Families Oligarchies that control the club. Oligarchies are associated with control and rule. In your rage above you move the argument from "control" to "influence" and then stream to some conspiracy theory of using Sticks to ensure the Status quo.

I have no debate with the point of influence. Of course Pratt and Mathieson have influence but so does Mckay, Swann, Fraser Brown, Sticks and Wayne Hughes. I would argue Hughes has had more influence on our results than any board member. The Pratt-Matheison money which I value as a member, affords them voice. Has it been to the clubs benefit. Most of the time yes: proper facilities, Surpluses, debt repayments, affording a decent head coach and using their connections to aid sponsorship. Don't forget the Carlton Football Club was on the verge of "handing back the keys". Have Pratt/Matheson/Board made mistakes. Yes I would say they don't have a strong handle on football matters and should have gone through a proper process when appointing Malthouse (although in my view a decent appointment.

In any case this is not a debate about influence but about WHETHER THEY CONTROL THE CLUB.

My contention is the Matheson/Pratts do not control the club but are probably the most influential board members.
They do not control the club for the following reasons

a) They occupy 3 of 11 board positions
b) They didn't appoint the other board members. At least 3 (Kernahan, Clark, Gleeson) were on before them. I couldn't find dates for the rest but their are plenty of board members that don't agree with these families
b) Sticks asked the Pratts to be involved. They did not appoint Sticks as President. In the Pratts case they supported the club with no strings attached money from the 1960's to 2007. This would be a staggering amount of money in today's $ If anything the Pratts represent the anti-thesis of control
c) If they are so dependent on Sticks for the status quo as you say why did at least some of the families you refer to seek out Fahour, who I gather you support?
c) The families' motive is to help the club and would be happy to leave and I am sure that day will come.
d) Board Vacancies can be filled unelected in the first instance but 1/3 of the board has to stand for re election every year. We can turn the board over every 3 years if we wish.
e)No director is allowed to hold his/her position for more than 12 years. That is hardly a recipe for complete control

So my argument is this. Have they influence- Yes. Have they made a valued Contribition-Yes. Have they made mistakes-Yes. Should there influence be diminished -Yes as a result of new people with better ideas. BUT don't confuse those issues with a conspiracy theory based on control so that you can blame the Carlton Football Clubs on field performance on the people that have done more to help the club than most.

Well Synbad the above terms of debate are exactly why your methods are annoying. You make good points but change the terms of an argument midstream to promote your case.
The argument is Are the Matheison & Pratt Families Oligarchies that control the club. Oligarchies are associated with control and rule. In your rage above you move the argument from "control" to "influence" and then stream to some conspiracy theory of using Sticks to ensure the Status quo.

I have no debate with the point of influence. Of course Pratt and Mathieson have influence but so does Mckay, Swann, Fraser Brown, Sticks and Wayne Hughes. I would argue Hughes has had more influence on our results than any board member. The Pratt-Matheison money which I value as a member, affords them voice. Has it been to the clubs benefit. Most of the time yes: proper facilities, Surpluses, debt repayments, affording a decent head coach and using their connections to aid sponsorship. Don't forget the Carlton Football Club was on the verge of "handing back the keys". Have Pratt/Matheson/Board made mistakes. Yes I would say they don't have a strong handle on football matters and should have gone through a proper process when appointing Malthouse (although in my view a decent appointment.

In any case this is not a debate about influence but about WHETHER THEY CONTROL THE CLUB.

My contention is the Matheson/Pratts do not control the club but are probably the most influential board members.
They do not control the club for the following reasons

a) They occupy 3 of 11 board positions
b) They didn't appoint the other board members. At least 3 (Kernahan, Clark, Gleeson) were on before them. I couldn't find dates for the rest but their are plenty of board members that don't agree with these families
b) Sticks asked the Pratts to be involved. They did not appoint Sticks as President. In the Pratts case they supported the club with no strings attached money from the 1960's to 2007. This would be a staggering amount of money in today's $ If anything the Pratts represent the anti-thesis of control
c) If they are so dependent on Sticks for the status quo as you say why did at least some of the families you refer to seek out Fahour, who I gather you support?
c) The families' motive is to help the club and would be happy to leave and I am sure that day will come.
d) Board Vacancies can be filled unelected in the first instance but 1/3 of the board has to stand for re election every year. We can turn the board over every 3 years if we wish.
e)No director is allowed to hold his/her position for more than 12 years. That is hardly a recipe for complete control

So my argument is this. Have they influence- Yes. Have they made a valued Contribition-Yes. Have they made mistakes-Yes. Should there influence be diminished -Yes as a result of new people with better ideas. BUT don't confuse those issues with a conspiracy theory based on control so that you can blame the Carlton Football Clubs on field performance on the people that have done more to help the club than most.

Nobody pumps money into any club. The directors make more from the club than they put in.

I don't recall directors or presidents writing out blank cheques or giving donations to the club.

They are there for their business contacts and innovative directorship and experience.

If Pratt gave us donations and endless blank cheques, why are we still 5 million dollars in debt?

And they should never write off our debts anyway. If they can help secure sponsorships that is great. But remember, the sponsor almost always makes more from the club than the other way around. That's why they do it

_________________
Vice President, International Extreme Sarcasm Society (IESS)

Nobody pumps money into any club. The directors make more from the club than they put in.

I don't recall directors or presidents writing out blank cheques or giving donations to the club.

They are there for their business contacts and innovative directorship and experience.

If Pratt gave us donations and endless blank cheques, why are we still 5 million dollars in debt?

And they should never write off our debts anyway. If they can help secure sponsorships that is great. But remember, the sponsor almost always makes more from the club than the other way around. That's why they do it

_________________
Vice President, International Extreme Sarcasm Society (IESS)

Nobody pumps money into any club. The directors make more from the club than they put in.

I don't recall directors or presidents writing out blank cheques or giving donations to the club.

They are there for their business contacts and innovative directorship and experience.

If Pratt gave us donations and endless blank cheques, why are we still 5 million dollars in debt?

And they should never write off our debts anyway. If they can help secure sponsorships that is great. But remember, the sponsor almost always makes more from the club than the other way around. That's why they do it

_________________
Vice President, International Extreme Sarcasm Society (IESS)

Clearly our 6m + debt proves that notwithstanding some of Australia's richest people on the Board we aren't drowning in donations.

If someone came along and cleared it (covering past mistakes) I'd happily grant them a 10 year seat on the Board.

Instead we keep them on the board in the hope that they will one day donate the big bucks.

_________________
Formerly: Ackland the Wonderkid / Army the Wonderkid / quivering mess / molsey / Tony Lynn Fan Club

Clearly our 6m + debt proves that notwithstanding some of Australia's richest people on the Board we aren't drowning in donations.

If someone came along and cleared it (covering past mistakes) I'd happily grant them a 10 year seat on the Board.

Instead we keep them on the board in the hope that they will one day donate the big bucks.

_________________
Formerly: Ackland the Wonderkid / Army the Wonderkid / quivering mess / molsey / Tony Lynn Fan Club