Should There Be a Spill of The EFC Board?

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:53 pm

Time to make a poll of this question. Let's see if the saveessendon.com have any real support. I believe the current board should run its race, and face re-election / execution in due course. I do not believe a small pack of anonymous people should disrupt the running and functioning of our football club. Any suggestion to remove Peter Jackson from his post is hideous.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:01 pm

who said yes?!

tom? e4e?

Gyoza · Post by **Gyoza** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:03 pm

Can we add the option of "f*** no" ?

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:03 pm

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!

Board made the right decision...made the announcement at the right time too, the more I think about it.

Once the Board made the decision, it would have been leaked out somehow and they had to let Sheedy know personally before it hit the media.

42% winning rate since 2001 is simply not good enough, questionable recruitment in the past 6 years, poor player development, terrible/no gameplan, lack of spirit, lack of effort on the field, playing favourites.

Simply could not be allowed to go on.

2 bottom 3 finishes, followed by a 12th place is simply not good enough. Sure we improved on last year and had 10 wins but it was the Hirds, Fetcher's, Lloyd's and Lucas's that were winning these games. Not the Stanton's, Lovett's, Monfries' etc etc...the young players that have been around 3-4 years and should be taking the next step up.

Gyoza · Post by **Gyoza** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:16 pm

This poll is going to end up more lopsided than a "Would you let John Howard shag your mum?" vote.

Gyoza · Post by **Gyoza** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:24 pm

Perhaps we could start another poll when this one has run its race.

"How do you feel about Save Essendon`s decision to remain anonymous? Is it:"

A - Gutless
B - Weak as piss
C - Showing they know they will get nowehere
D - Unimportant. We all know it`s Patrick Smith anyway

MH_Bomber · Post by **MH_Bomber** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:37 pm

Although I think any destabilisation of the board at this time is the absolute last thing we need, I nevertheless have to ask why the decision of non reappointment was made when it was made ?

To me it was a reaction to the 3 other clubs and was extremely bad in its timing in terms of the teams efforts to finish in the top 8. It is my belief that the whole year was derailed by the timing of the announcement. We had not been slaughtered all year to the extent of the Fremantle and Hawthorn games. Its like the players have been in a state of shock for the last 6 weeks apart from the the first game Adelaide the last half of the Carlton game and the last qtr of the West Coast game.

I grant that its easy to have 20/20 hindsight and in the boards mind they thought that Sheeds should be given a farewell tour. However given that we were still in the running for the finals and especially that it was Hirdy's last year, I think the decision should have been put off until we either couldnt make it or the end of the year.

Gyoza · Post by **Gyoza** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:39 pm

ealesy wrote:
No matter how they handled it, someone was always going to have their knickers in a knot about and chuck a hissy fit.

If they waited until the end of the season, then they would be trouble because no-one had a chance to farewell him.

If they waited for the last week of the season, they would've been in trouble because he didn't get a farewell in Victoria.

If they did the week before his last game in Melbourne, people would still have been sooking about how they didn't know this was going to happen and they had other plans and couldn't go to the game.

The fact is that Sheedy had been at the club for 27 years, for most of us, he's all we've ever known, and no matter how it was handled it was always going to upset people.

What we don't need now is a bunch of gutless dickheads who are to pissweak to even allow themselves to be publicly identified, to be allowed to rip the club apart and destablise us just because they want to have a really big loud hissy fit, that attracts lots of attention.

This post from another thread pretty much says it all

andrewb · Post by **andrewb** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:32 pm

I'm undecided... I'm waiting to see who they appoint. I think the timing of the announcement derailed our finals chances this year - we were still in the running and completely dropped the ball in the following weeks. I'm also a bit disappointed that we didn't look at a succession plan that allowed us to retain the services of one of the most successful coaches in history in some way, shape or form.

But, I don't believe in spilling boards over tough decisions. It's what they're paid to do. Providing we get a coach that won't accept defeat lightly (and I don't count Daniher in that number) I'll probably get over it.

andrewb · Post by **andrewb** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:39 pm

Oh... and I don't buy into that "we need to be in the market for the best coach available" bollocks, either. The market for senior coaching has a supply side shortage. Given that we haven't even held interviews yet I doubt that any candidate was going to say "No, Melbourne, I won't take your job because Essendon are going to interview me" or "Your offer sounds good, but can you please wait until the end of the finals campaign - I need to see if Essendon are keen".

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:48 pm

No. 2 things:
1) 3 of the 5 resolutions they're moving (based on the 5 point proposal i've seen from Smith's article) aren't valid.
2) Of the 2 resolutions that are valid, both could easily have waited until December's AGM.

I consider those 2 points irrebuttable.

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:45 pm

andrewb wrote:Oh... and I don't buy into that "we need to be in the market for the best coach available" bollocks, either. The market for senior coaching has a supply side shortage. Given that we haven't even held interviews yet I doubt that any candidate was going to say "No, Melbourne, I won't take your job because Essendon are going to interview me" or "Your offer sounds good, but can you please wait until the end of the finals campaign - I need to see if Essendon are keen".

Why?
They are probably interviewing people now, why do we need to know? Is the name of the coach going to influence you into buying a membership or not?
We keep things in house at Essendon, the media dont need to know shit about how we operate.

Back to the topic, if this Save Essendon group actually showed their faces and the listed who they would like as president and CEO, then maybe people might stop laughing at them.

Gyoza · Post by **Gyoza** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:22 pm

Rossoneri wrote:
andrewb wrote:Oh... and I don't buy into that "we need to be in the market for the best coach available" bollocks, either. The market for senior coaching has a supply side shortage. Given that we haven't even held interviews yet I doubt that any candidate was going to say "No, Melbourne, I won't take your job because Essendon are going to interview me" or "Your offer sounds good, but can you please wait until the end of the finals campaign - I need to see if Essendon are keen".
Why?
They are probably interviewing people now, why do we need to know? Is the name of the coach going to influence you into buying a membership or not?
We keep things in house at Essendon, the media dont need to know shit about how we operate.

Back to the topic, if this Save Essendon group actually showed their faces and the listed who they would like as president and CEO, then maybe people might stop laughing at them.

President: Patrick Smith
CEO: Robert Walls

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:09 pm

BomberinJapan wrote:
Rossoneri wrote:
andrewb wrote:Oh... and I don't buy into that "we need to be in the market for the best coach available" bollocks, either. The market for senior coaching has a supply side shortage. Given that we haven't even held interviews yet I doubt that any candidate was going to say "No, Melbourne, I won't take your job because Essendon are going to interview me" or "Your offer sounds good, but can you please wait until the end of the finals campaign - I need to see if Essendon are keen".
Why?
They are probably interviewing people now, why do we need to know? Is the name of the coach going to influence you into buying a membership or not?
We keep things in house at Essendon, the media dont need to know shit about how we operate.

Back to the topic, if this Save Essendon group actually showed their faces and the listed who they would like as president and CEO, then maybe people might stop laughing at them.
President: Patrick Smith
CEO: Robert Walls

Actually Robert has been rather quiet on the issue. He is at least showing respect by staying out of the debate when he could so easily be tempted to sink the boots in. In any case, Walls would be applauding the decision of the board, not voting against it.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:03 pm

108 signatures from 34, 219 members. What a joke. Turns out 0.003% of the members want an EGM. I know we live in a democracy, but this is sheer lunacy.

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/news.asp?nid=5358

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:34 pm

“However I think most people understand the board is charged with making difficult decisions in the best interests of the Club and that is what we did. The board made a decision that we believe will help get this Club building for the future.”

Damn straight PJ!!!

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:38 pm

These guys are a disgrace to our name they are f****** embarrassing ffs!!

Right decision was made and IMO it was not at the right time because it should been done 3 years ago and if you disagree with that then look at our results since Sheeds signed his last contract.

50% majority needed.... Laugh My Arse Off!!!

WANKERS!!

Boyler_Room · Post by **Boyler_Room** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:45 pm

The timing of the decision was extremely poor and the board acting hastily and in the process ruffled a lot of feathers unnecessarily.

Having said the above, the actions of the Save Essendon group have the potential to do the absolute opposite and cause a massive division within the membership ranks, which would be a crying shame after the powerhouse that Jackson and Sheedy have built together.

To be calling for Jackson's head is ridiculous. Have they even paid attention to our financial situation over the course of his tenure? I'd suggest they need to have a look.

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:47 pm

BenDoolan wrote:108 signatures from 34, 219 members. What a joke. Turns out 0.003% of the members want an EGM. I know we live in a democracy, but this is sheer lunacy.

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/news.asp?nid=5358

Ah well. At least the two resolutions they're lodging are valid, and they dropped the three that they had no right to put. That's an improvement.

Still. I don't understand why this couldn't wait for the AGM. The EGM has to happen some time over the next two months, but by the time EFC send out the notices, book the venue, fart around and do a pirouette, it won't happen until late October.......which is a matter of weeks before the AGM.

For me, it's just all a case of misguided anger. These people can put whatever gloss on it they choose, but it's as plain as the nose on Bill Lawry's face that the only reason this is happening is because Sheedy didn't have his contract renewed. How do i know this? Well, because this movement started the day Sheedy had his tenure ended, and well before any Board bumblings over the ensuing 2-3 weeks. It's a convenient smokescreen for these people to say "no, we're not doing this because Sheedy's gone, we're doing this because of the way the Board handled it", but that's just a falsity. The fact the Board had a few hiccups after ending Sheedy's career is a convenient ulterior motive and perhaps galvanised this mob to call an EGM, but really, they're fighting an idiotic and futile fight (to get Sheedy re-instated) and are using tenuous motives in doing so.

To say i disrespect these buffoons is to grossly inflate my levels of respect toward them.

Gyoza · Post by **Gyoza** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:01 pm

jimmyc1985 wrote:
Still. I don't understand why this couldn't wait for the AGM. The EGM has to happen some time over the next two months, but by the time EFC send out the notices, book the venue, fart around and do a pirouette, it won't happen until late October.......which is a matter of weeks before the AGM.

I think this is one of a few different signs (along with staying anonymous) that points to this group having no strong high profile business or sporting leader/leadership group.

What a horrible waste of time and money.

Bombertalk

Should There Be a Spill of The EFC Board?

Should there be a spill of the EFC Board?

Should There Be a Spill of The EFC Board?