_________________
*(grow - fun - gah)

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.

This bit made me giggle:



Oohhh, Fatprick's after me...I'm under such fierce scrutiny.....somebody save me....

FFS

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

Why, post-Pratt, do we need a billionaire at the helm anyway?

Wouldn't it be better to have a former-player with some business nous?

_________________
[Sam Jacobs] looks like a 7' Lance Whitnall, and [Mitch Robinson] looks like a 4' Lance Whitnall
(The SEN team during the Carlton v Cats 2009 pre-season match)

would have thought said billionaire had a fair bit of business nous?

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah)

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.

I was referring to the next pres

_________________
[Sam Jacobs] looks like a 7' Lance Whitnall, and [Mitch Robinson] looks like a 4' Lance Whitnall
(The SEN team during the Carlton v Cats 2009 pre-season match)

and i was referring to fahour

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah)

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.

snap!

_________________
[Sam Jacobs] looks like a 7' Lance Whitnall, and [Mitch Robinson] looks like a 4' Lance Whitnall
(The SEN team during the Carlton v Cats 2009 pre-season match)

great rid of some trash off the board like wilson and carr next year to get Fahour on

I think it's this part of the article that explains the reason they want someone like Fahour:



It's not only his business skills they want from him but his contacts in the business world, the people he does business with that he can help persuade to sponser the club.

Why do you want to get rid of Wilson. While we do not want a board full of lawyers, I still think we can definitely use one. Wilson, as a QC, should stay in my opinion. He's done a pretty good job this year, and has been promoting the club for over a decade.

If the board is to be reduced in size to about 8, I really don't see a place for Simon Wilson. Legal advice can be purchased as needed; a board member needs to bring contacts, sponsorship and business accumen.

Most QC's (despite being very good at what they do) wouldn't know the first thing about running a business.

If we really wanted a legal presence on the board, a better option would be a senior partner at a major firm, not a wig.

Yes because senior partners at major firms aren't subject to billable hours targets and the demands of the firm partnership, leaving them lots of time to devote to the club. And what makes you think a partner at a major law firm will know alot more about running a business than a QC? They would probably be equally blank. But they're not there to know how to run a business, they're there for legal issues. Pratt/Newton/ De lutis etc are there to know how to run a business. Just like Bear and Sticks are there because they know about football.

And in my opinion Wilson is the best place to be the one to give legal advice on the current board. I don't uhdnerstand why people on this site are so harsh on him.

Every board need a lawyer. Ralph Carr on the otherhand...

Ever sat within earshot of him at the footy BO?

If he were a decent lawyer he would have had a crack at the AFL last year regarding our missed priority pick.
The guy is dead wood....move on

Yes that is the barometer for determining if he is a good lawyer or not. The fact he is a QC (only the most elite lawyers make QC) obviously means nothing in light of the fact he couldn't "have a crack at the AFl last year regarding our missed priority pick".

Also, if we could get that priority pick back through legal action, we could have done it this year. I'm sure Pratt would have been happy to finance an army of QCs on 10k a day to get it. But there is probably no legal ground to stand on, due to the system of contracts the AFL uses to ensure that the priority pick /draft selection rules stand up in court.

Ryan you have yet to make one credible argument against Wilson.

That's fair enough if you don't think we need a lawyer on the board. I guess it is hard for us to know how much each board member is contributing/what they can bring, and therefore which should be removed.

My point is why should Simon be chopped off instead of others? It just appears some posters on here have personal issues against him. Personally, if the board needs to be cut, I have every faith in our President to make the right call on who should stay and who should go. (and who should possibly come in).

The one thing I also want to raise for discussion is is a big board so bad? I think the board have done an excellent job thisy ear. Is there anny need to cut it? Board members don't get paid, they volunteer there time. So why is it bad to have too many?

Perhaps a large board can function effectively in some circumstances but the following quote from Swann indicates otherwise.



I'm sure that any current board members would be available to assist and offer their services as required. They shouldnt need to be an elected board member to be of value to the club.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

Some of them have refused to step off... some have received phone calls to move away... but you can bet youre bottom dollar the real pressure has not begun yet...

Amazing how some of them think theyre crucial...

_________________
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.

psml .. the ignorance of it all ....... what makes you think that the price to pay to achieve the objective was worth the potential outcome ffs.. have a lay down and read a book