Discussion Re-Signings, Retirements, Delistings, Trade & Drafting
- Thread starter Herbie66
- Start date
- Joined
- 21 May 2012
- Messages
- 22,366
- Likes
- 31,319
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Wait until it comes out what Fremantle’s offer presented to him was in terms of both dollars and years. It was absolutely embarrassing for an established player who put forward a pretty damn solid year on the wing.
Obviously there’s the reasons why the money needs to be spread for Jackson and that next crop of players that they’ve re-signed like Young, Chapman, NOD, Serong etc. So Acres is the expendable one, but geez, the offer was insulting.
Obviously there’s the reasons why the money needs to be spread for Jackson and that next crop of players that they’ve re-signed like Young, Chapman, NOD, Serong etc. So Acres is the expendable one, but geez, the offer was insulting.
Apparently North to get Logue, Tucker and Fremantle's future third-round selection in exchange for a future second-round, third-round and fourth-round picks.
Interest from a SC perspective is Tucker, if he's played as an inside midfielder at North he'll have to be considered as a starting selection as a defender for around $230k.
Interest from a SC perspective is Tucker, if he's played as an inside midfielder at North he'll have to be considered as a starting selection as a defender for around $230k.
At least it's not the Hawks for a change...
Looks like someone didn't do a background check before employing him, it sounds like it was based on previous comments made as head of a church.
https://www.afl.com.au/news/854438/new-bombers-ceo-resigns-after-one-day-in-the-role
Looks like someone didn't do a background check before employing him, it sounds like it was based on previous comments made as head of a church.
https://www.afl.com.au/news/854438/new-bombers-ceo-resigns-after-one-day-in-the-role
Thorburn is the current chairman of City on the Hill. He hadn't made the offending comments or expressed those views but the Board formed the view that he couldn't remain a chair of that group and be the CEO of EFC.
Official statement from the club as follows:
Statement on behalf of Dave Barham
The Board of the Essendon Football Club has accepted the resignation of Andrew Thorburn as CEO.
As soon as the comments relating to a 2013 sermon from a pastor, at the City of the Hill church came to light this morning, we acted immediately to clarify the publicly espoused views on the organisation’s official website, which are in direct contradiction to our values as a Club.
Essendon is committed to providing an inclusive, diverse and a safe Club, where everyone is welcome and respected.
The Board made clear that, despite these not being views that Andrew Thorburn has expressed personally and that were also made prior to him taking up his role as Chairman, he couldn’t continue to serve in his dual roles at the Essendon Football Club and as Chairman of City on the Hill.
The Board respects Andrew’s decision.
We are deeply committed to our values and support wholeheartedly the work of the AFL in continuing to stamp out any discrimination based on race, sex, religion, gender, sexual identity or orientation, or physical or mental disability.
I want to stress that neither the board nor Andrew was aware of the comments from the 2013 sermon until we read about them this morning. I also want to stress that this is not about vilifying anyone for their personal religious beliefs, but about a clear conflict of interest with an organisation whose views do not align at all with our values as a safe, inclusive, diverse and welcoming club for our staff, our players, our members, our fans, our partners and the wider community.
Acting CEO Nick Ryan will continue in his role whilst we commence the process to appoint a new CEO.
It's staggering that professional organisations with professional external recruiting consultants cannot find this stuff when the media (and anyone else for that matter) doing a simple Google search can. It's not like it's buried in the past. He's the current chairman of that group!
Official statement from the club as follows:
Statement on behalf of Dave Barham
The Board of the Essendon Football Club has accepted the resignation of Andrew Thorburn as CEO.
As soon as the comments relating to a 2013 sermon from a pastor, at the City of the Hill church came to light this morning, we acted immediately to clarify the publicly espoused views on the organisation’s official website, which are in direct contradiction to our values as a Club.
Essendon is committed to providing an inclusive, diverse and a safe Club, where everyone is welcome and respected.
The Board made clear that, despite these not being views that Andrew Thorburn has expressed personally and that were also made prior to him taking up his role as Chairman, he couldn’t continue to serve in his dual roles at the Essendon Football Club and as Chairman of City on the Hill.
The Board respects Andrew’s decision.
We are deeply committed to our values and support wholeheartedly the work of the AFL in continuing to stamp out any discrimination based on race, sex, religion, gender, sexual identity or orientation, or physical or mental disability.
I want to stress that neither the board nor Andrew was aware of the comments from the 2013 sermon until we read about them this morning. I also want to stress that this is not about vilifying anyone for their personal religious beliefs, but about a clear conflict of interest with an organisation whose views do not align at all with our values as a safe, inclusive, diverse and welcoming club for our staff, our players, our members, our fans, our partners and the wider community.
Acting CEO Nick Ryan will continue in his role whilst we commence the process to appoint a new CEO.
It's staggering that professional organisations with professional external recruiting consultants cannot find this stuff when the media (and anyone else for that matter) doing a simple Google search can. It's not like it's buried in the past. He's the current chairman of that group!
Just talking in general here, and not specifically about Thorburn.
If all high profile leaders (politicians, sporting club leaders, public servants) have to have lily white histories, and espouse the current "correct way of thinking", while also never having uttered or done something seemingly inappropriate in their life, ever, then the pool of available people to choose from will be close to zero!!!
Practically everybody, and I do mean everybody, has done something in their past, that others can shine a light on and say, "Is this the sort of person we want in this position?".
They might have gotten drunk, and kissed a girl at a party 20 years ago, and now she says she didn't consent. They might have said or written something in a public forum, that will have those that want to be offended covering their mouths in shock.
What ever happened to you can have your view/belief, and I will have mine. I will respect the right for your view/belief to be different from mine, and not try to force or coerce you to my thinking, and I expect you will show me the same respect.
In this particular case Thorburn is being asked to step down because he is a leader of church that outwardly condemns hom0sexuality. Here's a new flash. Pretty much every religion condemns something that new/current thinking tells society they must embrace. Some religions/people condemn them overtly, most covertly. So we've pretty much precluded anyone of any strong religious belief, from holding a high profile position!!!!
Given we are meant to be inclusive these days, and we are not meant to pre-judge people, how about we still use the old fashioned "best man for the job" scenario, instead of using a process that honestly precludes 95% of people holding high profile positions. How about Thorburn was given a chance, to do the job he was chosen to do, and we not condemn him for his beliefs, until those beliefs started impacting his decision making, and his ability to do his job?
The pool of people left to choose from will largely contain people with very limited experience, and just by that fact alone, are probably unsuited to the jobs anyway!!! I've always liked my leaders/politicians to have a little bit of scoundrel, a little bit of mongrel, a little bit of colour about their character. They're the ones, while a very small number will hate the scoundrel in them, that usually also have the hutzpah to get things done!
I've always found religious/pc thinking almost comical. Some of the least "christian" people I know, are also the most "christian" people I know. The same goes with pc. Let's be inclusive, but let's only include the people who think how we want type of thinking.
How about we give people the benefit of the doubt, and the freedom to hold their beliefs. Let's respect that they can do what they need to do, despite their beliefs, and do so until proven otherwise. It's a very short trip down the road, from doing things like that have just been done to Thorburn, to once again segregating people by race/religion/politics, which is the exact opposite of what "they" are trying to achieve. History repeating itself. Those trying to fast track societal reform, usually fast track the opposite of their intentions!!!
I know this will be an unpopular post, but I will leave you with one last thought.
Using Thorburn as an example. Isn't it better, if he is the best skilled for the job, to have Thorburn doing the CEO job, while we are aware of his beliefs, than to have someone else, that has hidden beliefs, that may be even more out of step with today's expected thinking?
If all high profile leaders (politicians, sporting club leaders, public servants) have to have lily white histories, and espouse the current "correct way of thinking", while also never having uttered or done something seemingly inappropriate in their life, ever, then the pool of available people to choose from will be close to zero!!!
Practically everybody, and I do mean everybody, has done something in their past, that others can shine a light on and say, "Is this the sort of person we want in this position?".
They might have gotten drunk, and kissed a girl at a party 20 years ago, and now she says she didn't consent. They might have said or written something in a public forum, that will have those that want to be offended covering their mouths in shock.
What ever happened to you can have your view/belief, and I will have mine. I will respect the right for your view/belief to be different from mine, and not try to force or coerce you to my thinking, and I expect you will show me the same respect.
In this particular case Thorburn is being asked to step down because he is a leader of church that outwardly condemns hom0sexuality. Here's a new flash. Pretty much every religion condemns something that new/current thinking tells society they must embrace. Some religions/people condemn them overtly, most covertly. So we've pretty much precluded anyone of any strong religious belief, from holding a high profile position!!!!
Given we are meant to be inclusive these days, and we are not meant to pre-judge people, how about we still use the old fashioned "best man for the job" scenario, instead of using a process that honestly precludes 95% of people holding high profile positions. How about Thorburn was given a chance, to do the job he was chosen to do, and we not condemn him for his beliefs, until those beliefs started impacting his decision making, and his ability to do his job?
The pool of people left to choose from will largely contain people with very limited experience, and just by that fact alone, are probably unsuited to the jobs anyway!!! I've always liked my leaders/politicians to have a little bit of scoundrel, a little bit of mongrel, a little bit of colour about their character. They're the ones, while a very small number will hate the scoundrel in them, that usually also have the hutzpah to get things done!
I've always found religious/pc thinking almost comical. Some of the least "christian" people I know, are also the most "christian" people I know. The same goes with pc. Let's be inclusive, but let's only include the people who think how we want type of thinking.
How about we give people the benefit of the doubt, and the freedom to hold their beliefs. Let's respect that they can do what they need to do, despite their beliefs, and do so until proven otherwise. It's a very short trip down the road, from doing things like that have just been done to Thorburn, to once again segregating people by race/religion/politics, which is the exact opposite of what "they" are trying to achieve. History repeating itself. Those trying to fast track societal reform, usually fast track the opposite of their intentions!!!
I know this will be an unpopular post, but I will leave you with one last thought.
Using Thorburn as an example. Isn't it better, if he is the best skilled for the job, to have Thorburn doing the CEO job, while we are aware of his beliefs, than to have someone else, that has hidden beliefs, that may be even more out of step with today's expected thinking?