Tweet
Re: AFL targets Essendon Royalty
Hotchpotch detrimental to Bombers
Undoubtedly, the Essendon FC drugs scandal has left Essendon red-faced, if not with proverbial blood on its hands. This sorry tale will be dissected, analysed and critiqued for years to come by footy fans at the pub to the professionals charged with making authoritative determinations on the culpability of involved parties. And presumably, greater clarity of detail will prevail with time.
But what is already patently apparent is that this is a story of an organisation failing to properly address the potential pitfalls of a corporate structure.
If a football club chooses to exist as a corporate entity, then the individuals who make up that corporation need to appreciate the legal and regulatory framework in which they operate. For instance, one would think it is of utmost importance to ensure that, within a corporation, employed professionals do not encroach on matters that are not within their respective area of expertise. As a case in point, in the event that it is proven so, what would have warranted James Hird having any involvement in a supplements program couched in advanced science? He does not profess to be doctor nor scientist.
That task should have remained in the exclusive domain of the club doctor and any other employed professionals proficient in the relevant practice. Admittedly, this may not have averted a similarly worrying outcome at Essendon FC, in which young men may have been injected with unknown substances, possibly unknowingly. But at least any blameworthiness, from a non-player perspective, would be more tightly contained, and lie only with the involved doctors and club scientists.
Rather, the administering of drugs appears to have been the result of a hotchpotch collaborative approach, involving football club employees from across the board. As a result, it has proven impossible to impugn only a few individuals, and instead, the damage to the corporation, direct and collateral, has been widespread and largely indiscriminate. The confusion, and implied blameworthiness has probably done more damage than the actual formal consequences ever will.
We can all learn a lesson from these events: Individuals who work within a corporate environment need to properly appreciate that they still have a personal responsibility to operate within applicable rules and laws, as well as contribute to the corporation's overall compliance. Most likely there were individuals at Essendon who had greater personal culpability than others, but a failure to properly compartmentalise roles, in conjunction with weak overall governance, has seen many tarred with the same brush, and the reputation of Essendon enter free-fall.
Publicly documented examples of corporate failure come to light occasionally, and often seem so far-fetched that they evoke the ''that would never happen to me'' response. But the reality is all individuals who belong to a corporation need to be aware that there may come a time when their system is questioned with a view to establishing personal liability. Participate in your corporation accordingly.
Tom McCarthy is a business adviser and former commercial lawyer.
In essence a boys club that decided the rules needed to be pushed to the line of ethical reasonableness.
The question I have is where the hell was the player welfare team at Essendon? I can tell you Brett Goodes or the other staff at Whitten Oval would never stand for it. I've met some of the support staff at the Bulldogs more than once and I'm fairly confident they wouldn't stand for anything like that at our club.
From:
Hotchpotch detrimental to Bombers
Undoubtedly, the Essendon FC drugs scandal has left Essendon red-faced, if not with proverbial blood on its hands. This sorry tale will be dissected, analysed and critiqued for years to come by footy fans at the pub to the professionals charged with making authoritative determinations on the culpability of involved parties. And presumably, greater clarity of detail will prevail with time.
But what is already patently apparent is that this is a story of an organisation failing to properly address the potential pitfalls of a corporate structure.
If a football club chooses to exist as a corporate entity, then the individuals who make up that corporation need to appreciate the legal and regulatory framework in which they operate. For instance, one would think it is of utmost importance to ensure that, within a corporation, employed professionals do not encroach on matters that are not within their respective area of expertise. As a case in point, in the event that it is proven so, what would have warranted James Hird having any involvement in a supplements program couched in advanced science? He does not profess to be doctor nor scientist.
That task should have remained in the exclusive domain of the club doctor and any other employed professionals proficient in the relevant practice. Admittedly, this may not have averted a similarly worrying outcome at Essendon FC, in which young men may have been injected with unknown substances, possibly unknowingly. But at least any blameworthiness, from a non-player perspective, would be more tightly contained, and lie only with the involved doctors and club scientists.
Rather, the administering of drugs appears to have been the result of a hotchpotch collaborative approach, involving football club employees from across the board. As a result, it has proven impossible to impugn only a few individuals, and instead, the damage to the corporation, direct and collateral, has been widespread and largely indiscriminate. The confusion, and implied blameworthiness has probably done more damage than the actual formal consequences ever will.
We can all learn a lesson from these events: Individuals who work within a corporate environment need to properly appreciate that they still have a personal responsibility to operate within applicable rules and laws, as well as contribute to the corporation's overall compliance. Most likely there were individuals at Essendon who had greater personal culpability than others, but a failure to properly compartmentalise roles, in conjunction with weak overall governance, has seen many tarred with the same brush, and the reputation of Essendon enter free-fall.
Publicly documented examples of corporate failure come to light occasionally, and often seem so far-fetched that they evoke the ''that would never happen to me'' response. But the reality is all individuals who belong to a corporation need to be aware that there may come a time when their system is questioned with a view to establishing personal liability. Participate in your corporation accordingly.
Tom McCarthy is a business adviser and former commercial lawyer.
In essence a boys club that decided the rules needed to be pushed to the line of ethical reasonableness.
The question I have is where the hell was the player welfare team at Essendon? I can tell you Brett Goodes or the other staff at Whitten Oval would never stand for it. I've met some of the support staff at the Bulldogs more than once and I'm fairly confident they wouldn't stand for anything like that at our club.
From:
Comment