| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yin-YANG
Joined: 03 Oct 2011
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
C'mon Lazza - this is footy related - OK not on-field stuff but still worthy of a discussion on Nicks. You don't care about social/democratic/ethical issues? Without much footy to talk about some of these other issues will crop up. As I recall you were quite happy to add some input on the Goodes issue last year - which I would think is fair enuf!
FFS Lazza try to let discussions play out and tell the little dictator in your head to STFU!
_________________
Love us or Hate us... we are Collingwood - you can't ignore the Mighty Magpies!!! |
|
|
|
 |
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| yin-YANG wrote: | C'mon Lazza - this is footy related - OK not on-field stuff but still worthy of a discussion on Nicks. You don't care about social/democratic/ethical issues? Without much footy to talk about some of these other issues will crop up. As I recall you were quite happy to add some input on the Goodes issue last year - which I would think is fair enuf!
FFS Lazza try to let discussions play out and tell the little dictator in your head to STFU! |
I'm NOT against discussions dude, at the very least, get that right. This IS a discussion board after all! However when it’s a topic involving such varied social/democratic/ethical issues, politics, morals etc. my humble opinion is that it should be in the Victoria Park Tavern section for discussion to your heart's content.
However feel free to totally disagree and go on putting shit on our beloved Club, Pert, and Eddie, anyone else from Collingwood that you don’t particularly like. <snip - please refrain from insults and name-calling. Thanks, David for BBMods.> 
_________________
Don't confuse your current path with your final destination. Just because it's dark and stormy now doesn't meant that you aren't headed for glorious sunshine! |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Lazza, members (or observers) questioning the board's decisions is no different to citizens questioning those of a government. Would you call political dissidents unpatriotic? Many have, after all.
If the complaints are puerile and vexatious, then sure, call that out. But nepotism and cronyism are massive problems in the corporate world, and I'm not sure this particular arrangement passes the sniff test. Loyal Collingwood supporters are at the very least entitled to ask questions about how our club is being run.
PS all matters regarding the Collingwood Football Club are permitted in General Discussion.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Lazza, members (or observers) questioning the board's decisions is no different to citizens questioning those of a government. Would you call political dissidents unpatriotic? Many have, after all.
If the complaints are puerile and vexatious, then sure, call that out. But nepotism and cronyism are massive problems in the corporate world, and I'm not sure this particular arrangement passes the sniff test. Loyal Collingwood supporters are at the very least entitled to ask questions about how our club is being run. |
Asking questions is perfectly acceptable but to come from a base position of assumed impropriety clearly devalues those questions. Even the basic tenant of law in this country is a presumption of innocence. Members also have a more appropriate forum to raise these sort of questions, it's called an AGM.
Decisions such as this would be made at Board level and while Pert has a seat at that table as far as I'm aware he does not have a vote in the decision making, that privilege resides with the 7 directors.
Come to us with evidence rather than an assumption that the Clubs procurement guidelines have been breached or that Mrs Pert's company has been awarded the contract despite the availability of cheaper & better quality options and then we can start talking nepotism and cronyism. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| CarringbushCigar wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | CarringbushCigar wrote: | | ronrat wrote: | | I would have thought clubs would want to distance them from supplement companies. |
I would have thought it should be illegal for the CEO of a corporation to contract with a company that his wife owns.
Is this standard behaviour now in the world?
Are we as a society so jaded from top end of town tricks that we are willing to take it up the … without a whimper?
This is member's money.
How can this be in any way appropriate?
Maybe there isn't one ounce of moral fibre amongst the lot of em. |
Hardly illegal and likely a decision made at Board level without the input of Pert who no doubt appropriately given conflict of interest issues would have excused himself from discussion on the matter. Pretty standard Board practice. Maybe you should have taken issue with the perception of moral wrong aspect. |
What do u think I'm taking issue with?
Of course this is morally wrong, seriously wrong and it should be illegal.
If the board was part of the decision to enter into a supplier arrangement with a company effectively owned by the CEO they should all stand down.
Honestly if DTM became CEO and his wife started up a catering company that was then awarded the rights at the new function centre - then this would be ok?
The apathy is mind boggling. |
I'd presumed you were just putting your typical negative spin on any story related to Collingwood Football Club, finding the lowest possible denominator and assuming that's clearly what occurred. Forgive me if I'm off the mark. |
|
|
|
|
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Lazza, members (or observers) questioning the board's decisions is no different to citizens questioning those of a government. Would you call political dissidents unpatriotic? Many have, after all.
If the complaints are puerile and vexatious, then sure, call that out. But nepotism and cronyism are massive problems in the corporate world, and I'm not sure this particular arrangement passes the sniff test. Loyal Collingwood supporters are at the very least entitled to ask questions about how our club is being run.
PS all matters regarding the Collingwood Football Club are permitted in General Discussion. |
FWIW initially, I was mainly questioning the particular thread being in the General Discussion section and not in the Vic Park Tavern section where I honestly thought it belonged. Also, my feeling was that this issue was better addressed to the Club, Eddie or Pert rather than written as a FACT on Nick's. I thought that I made that clear and that Nick's didn't approve of totally unscrupulous, unsubstantiated rumours or gossip. I was obviously wrong on my assumption.
However I have learnt over the many years here as a regular poster that challenging, confronting and contradicting the views of the establishment (the Nick's moderator/s) is a complete waste of my time as any board sensibilities seem to go out the window.........
To put shit on the club we claim to supposedly support seems to be completely acceptable and any oppositional/defensive view gets hosed down by the Moderator. We might as well call this the anti Collingwood discussion board, at least this aspect will be fully and honestly recognised.
So David whatever floats your boat is OK with me dude.
_________________
Don't confuse your current path with your final destination. Just because it's dark and stormy now doesn't meant that you aren't headed for glorious sunshine! |
|
|
|
|
CarringbushCigar 
Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Location: wherever I lay my beanie
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | CarringbushCigar wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | CarringbushCigar wrote: | | ronrat wrote: | | I would have thought clubs would want to distance them from supplement companies. |
I would have thought it should be illegal for the CEO of a corporation to contract with a company that his wife owns.
Is this standard behaviour now in the world?
Are we as a society so jaded from top end of town tricks that we are willing to take it up the … without a whimper?
This is member's money.
How can this be in any way appropriate?
Maybe there isn't one ounce of moral fibre amongst the lot of em. |
Hardly illegal and likely a decision made at Board level without the input of Pert who no doubt appropriately given conflict of interest issues would have excused himself from discussion on the matter. Pretty standard Board practice. Maybe you should have taken issue with the perception of moral wrong aspect. |
What do u think I'm taking issue with?
Of course this is morally wrong, seriously wrong and it should be illegal.
If the board was part of the decision to enter into a supplier arrangement with a company effectively owned by the CEO they should all stand down.
Honestly if DTM became CEO and his wife started up a catering company that was then awarded the rights at the new function centre - then this would be ok?
The apathy is mind boggling. |
I'd presumed you were just putting your typical negative spin on any story related to Collingwood Football Club, finding the lowest possible denominator and assuming that's clearly what occurred. Forgive me if I'm off the mark. |
You are forgiven - i have had a large wager on Collingwood to make top 4 in 2016. More than anyone here I do not want negative stories.
I have not assumed anything - quite the opposite all I am doing is asking questions.
It is the nothing to see here Loyalty Choir that have been making the assumptions here that the board has signed this off and Pert's declared his conflict of interest. Even if that is correct it only covers Pert off from being deceitful. It does not therefore make this ok.
I am not an expert in Corporate Ethics but these circumstances demand an outsider to review what has happened, and ensure sufficient evidence from the back office is provided that demonstrates this contract was awarded based on merit, at a competitive price, and in accordance with our arrangements with other independent suppliers.
No doubt Samantha Lane knew what she was doing when she included this seemingly innocuous paragraph in her story.
What shocks me is that ATM we are the only souls discussing it.
It is a credit to us and Nick's that these business practices are at least being questioned. |
|
|
|
|
partypie
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Your assumptions are actually pretty sexist, which could form part of the discussions about the invisible barriers preventing women from breaching the glass ceiling.
It sounds like Andi Pert is highly credentialed to perform this task.
Years ago Gai Waterhouse had to go to court to be allowed to train racehorses. She was prevented initially due to her husbands poor record as a bookmaker. Her argument that her husbands position was irrelevant prevailed and she is now one of the most successful trainers in the business.
Some CEOs say that getting the input of women and being inclusive is what gives them the edge in a competitive environment. Wouldn't it be just fantastic if that lead to success for the team we support? |
|
|
|
|
CarringbushCigar
Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Location: wherever I lay my beanie
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| partypie wrote: | Your assumptions are actually pretty sexist, which could form part of the discussions about the invisible barriers preventing women from breaching the glass ceiling.
It sounds like Andi Pert is highly credentialed to perform this task.
Years ago Gai Waterhouse had to go to court to be allowed to train racehorses. She was prevented initially due to her husbands poor record as a bookmaker. Her argument that her husbands position was irrelevant prevailed and she is now one of the most successful trainers in the business.
Some CEOs say that getting the input of women and being inclusive is what gives them the edge in a competitive environment. Wouldn't it be just fantastic if that lead to success for the team we support? |
What assumptions ? |
|
|
|
|
partypie
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| You are assuming that a person automatically has an interest in their spouses business affairs. That is incorrect. |
|
|
|
|
CarringbushCigar
Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Location: wherever I lay my beanie
|
| Post subject: | |
|
OK I see where u are going.
Sorry there is no suggestion of anything technically wrong and for any sexist language.
There would be equal concern if our club CEO was in a business relationship with their married/defacto partner regardless of their sex, and its purely an ethical question.
It appears a great appointment of a true pie fan and apologies for derailing this thread again. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| yin-YANG wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | ^
As jackass already said, conflicts of interest are declared as part of good and due governance. Why would you rule out what may be the best potential candidate because of a relationship issue that is declared?
That's just dumb. |
I disagree - just because you declare a conflict of interest does not make it good governance. Declaring what is glaringly obvious does not mean it should then be acceptable to do whatever you want.
This is what happens with lots of these boards - and now our own pure cronyism!
Not a good look and a black mark on the board and Eddie for letting this go through and ruin what should have been a good news story.  |
But Pert is not on the board and didn't make the decision, the board did.
Without examining the selection process for the supplier and the governance put into it, making assumptions of cronyism based on a relationships to someone who didn't participate in the selection is IMHO just stupid.
I would expect that, given the people on the board, this company would have had to tick more boxes to ensure probity than anyone else would have.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
CarringbushCigar
Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Location: wherever I lay my beanie
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| No doubt, probably had nothing to do with it, probably didn't even discuss it - just wondered if anyone thought it was worth examining |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Where would I get nothing to do with it didn't discuss it - wondered if anyone thought it was worth examining ? But I do have a great . |
|
|
|
|
yin-YANG
Joined: 03 Oct 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Lazza wrote: | | yin-YANG wrote: | C'mon Lazza - this is footy related - OK not on-field stuff but still worthy of a discussion on Nicks. You don't care about social/democratic/ethical issues? Without much footy to talk about some of these other issues will crop up. As I recall you were quite happy to add some input on the Goodes issue last year - which I would think is fair enuf!
FFS Lazza try to let discussions play out and tell the little dictator in your head to STFU! |
I'm NOT against discussions dude, at the very least, get that right. This IS a discussion board after all! However when it’s a topic involving such varied social/democratic/ethical issues, politics, morals etc. my humble opinion is that it should be in the Victoria Park Tavern section for discussion to your heart's content.
However feel free to totally disagree and go on putting shit on our beloved Club, Pert, and Eddie, anyone else from Collingwood that you don’t particularly like. <snip - please refrain from insults and name-calling. Thanks, David for BBMods.> |
So you want to take this outside… well what's the problem mate - are you Gary's cousin or something?
_________________
Love us or Hate us... we are Collingwood - you can't ignore the Mighty Magpies!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
