What should we make of Jeff Browne's motivations?

Jeff Browne has finally spoken.

In a public letter he’s listed seven reasons he’s been motivated to mount a challenge against Collingwood president Mark Korda and the club’s board.

Well, sort of.

He’s still waiting for the petition, first started by David Hatley and now taken over by Vic Nicholas, to trigger the extraordinary general meeting.

But now we’re learning why Browne’s emerged as a candidate.

Number one and two on his list are: “A botched miscalculation of the salary cap, overseen by the current president as chairman of the finance committee” and “an undignified ejection of four very good players, forced out because of the salary cap blunders”.

This is actually just the one thing: Collingwood’s handling of the salary cap.

And I totally agree. It was abysmal. I’ve written about this often enough.

Then we have “the botched appointment of a so-called director, with no past passion for or engagement with Collingwood”.

I agree that this was a terrible move. But this also goes back to the oligarchy that McGuire set up. Elections were out. Eligibility criteria were irrelevant. The club appointed who they liked and then had it ratified in the annual general meeting.

McGuire prided himself on this system and has boasted about it on Footy Classified.

(Photo by Darrian Traynor/Getty Images)

Then we have these two points, which are largely one and the same: “Unprecedented low attendances at Collingwood home games at the MCG” and “a devaluation of the Collingwood brand that has seen the broadcast of non-feature matches relegated to graveyard television broadcasting slots”.

Yes, Collingwood played an unattractive brand of football. They nosedived this season. Crowds are down – although COVID restrictions must be factored in. Fan enjoyment is down.

With the new rolling fixtures, struggling teams are going to earn the graveyard slots. That’s a sad reality.

But we have a contradiction because point four is “the inherent instability that surrounds replacing a coach midseason, an episode only saved significantly by the class and dignity of the coach himself”.

So he criticises the club for their poor brand of football and what that’s resulted in – poor attendances, poor time slots – but then criticises the club for removing the coach who is responsible.

Which is it? The two arguments can’t coexist.

Either you commend the board for recognising on-field issues are the responsibility of the coach and thus seek to replace him, or the coach is hard done by and you retain him and thus stand by on-field performances and all the ramifications that might stem from that.

Also, this reason is cited like Collingwood’s done something no other club has done – sacked a coach midseason and appointed a caretaker.

Isn’t that the accepted practice?

(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)

Now, in some cases you could extrapolate that sacking a coach midseason might be an admission the club appointed the wrong person – that is, when somebody’s been in the position for only a short time, like a couple of seasons; the team has struggled and/or declined; or the club has realised the appointment isn’t a good fit.

But Buckley was in his tenth year. While we might not be privy to all the reasons behind the dismissal, it’s fair to accept that the club has given the coach a fair chance, has accumulated a body of evidence for the dismissal following an internal review or simply feels change is needed.

Then there’s the kicker: Browne cites this as one of the reasons he’s mounted his challenge, but his challenge was mounted well before Buckley was terminated.

Obviously Browne can claim this is just another reason that’s motivating him, but it certainly couldn’t have been a core reason – unless he professes to be psychic.

Finally, there’s this: “Apparent meetings with some supporters pledging long-overdue improvement to members benefits and facilities, offered amidst a plea not to give the members their right to elect a new board to represent them”.

Again, I agree. But the big issue here with this point is it again goes back to the practices that Eddie McGuire set up.

And that’s at the crux of a lot of this list: he highlights issues with the incumbent board yet ignores the former president who oversaw, if not made, these decisions.

Yet this former president is going to be like a patron for Browne. This is on record. How does that work? Condemn the board for their failings but overlook those failings for the president who oversaw and/or made these decisions for the last 23 years? What’s next? McGuire to become Browne’s running mate or his successor?

I don’t imagine these are out of the realms of possibility given the mixed messages.

And if this board are so bad, why did Browne first try to cannibalise certain members for his own board? If they’re this bad, wouldn’t you want to spill them completely? Wouldn’t you want all of them nowhere near governance?

Some might suggest Browne was trying to avoid political bloodshed, but I struggle to reconcile that, on the one hand, he wants to incorporate the incumbents but, on the other hand, he’s condemning them. It’s the same as the McGuire argument: condemn the board for their failings but excuse the guy who was their president.

Some might criticise me as being hypocritical given I’ve lambasted the incumbents, but that doesn’t mean I want to accept just any alternative. Nobody should. And no offence to Eddie McGuire, but I’d want to move away from his involvement. I’m thankful for his service, but all he is now is a supporter and media personality – that’s it.

Browne’s reasons are just what many have been saying for a long time now. Perhaps Browne has always felt this way, but instead of being ahead of the pack to highlight his concerns, it now feels like he’s belatedly trying to tap into the communal narrative as an attempt at showcasing empathy and connectivity. “Hey, gang, we’re all in this together!”.

Sorry. It doesn’t wash. If they were the criteria for appointment, I should be president.

Again, Browne hasn’t laid out his vision for the club. This is what everybody wants. Some might counter he doesn’t have to until an EGM is called. Well, unless he explains his vision and shows us it warrants an EGM, why call it?

Tell us how you’re going to make Collingwood better. Stay away from the rhetoric. Anybody can use it. What is the plan moving forward?

Obviously the incumbents haven’t laid out their visions either, and I’d love for them to do so also.

But they did bring the AGM forward, which was one of former petition leader David Hatley’s requests. Hatley’s no longer spearheading the petition, yet the club enacted that change despite the petition still going ahead – so they didn’t buy a plea as Browne suggests. You can’t cite manipulation unless the club got something out of it. They didn’t. They acted in good faith.

The biggest danger is flocking to change for change’s sake. Until Browne offers more, he’s just this bright shiny bauble that’s new and attractive and untarnished. Naturally people are going to be drawn to him in the wake of the McGuire mess.

But until I hear more from either party, I’m reserving judgement.