It's time for Essendon fans to demand a total management cleanout

Following the federal court ruling that the joint Asada-AFL investigation into Essendon’s 2012 supplement regime was indeed lawful, anti-doping disciplinary action is set to proceed against Bombers players. The club’s decision this week to stick with coach James Hird – a man suspended for his part in the scandal – is another episode likely to have members questioning the decision making prowess at club management and board level.

Whether or not Hird’s now-confirmed November appeal of the court’s decision is successful, and if not, however any eventual ruling against players comes down, there is no outcome that can provide vindication for the club’s management and coaching staff. Whether or not any players are found guilty of a violation, the case ends up being thrown out, or, crucially, even if all players are found completely innocent, for those at the helm of Essendon, being innocent of sports doping does not equal being vindicated of questionable management decision making.

To risk the complete financial obliteration of a 140-year-old institution for the at-best fractional performance gains of the so-called grey area supplements the club was allegedly dabbling in is mind-bogglingly irrational. At least when a rogue trader invests in Bulgarian credit default swaps or Uruguayan soybean futures, you can be sure there was probably a half-decent payoff on the upside. Surely Hird, a stockbroker during his time away from AFL, has at least some concept of risk versus reward. If he showed a similar lack of aptitude as a broker, the Wolf of Windy Hill must have left a trail of very angry and broke clients in his wake.

And financial catastrophe is what we’re talking about for Essendon in the worst-case scenario. Despite simultaneously facing the largest fine ever dished out by the league and the prospect of dwindling membership revenues if the club is unable to field a team in 2015, the most diabolical financial risks facing the club relate to employment law and sponsors’ rights. Justice John Middleton’s 123 page federal court ruling states that “possible anti-doping violations by Essendon players...may have occurred because proper governance and management practices were not in place”, leaving the door open for potential wide-scale legal action by players under workplace safety laws. Indeed the club is currently under investigation by the Victorian Workcover Authority. In terms of sponsorships, a recent note from Melbourne law firm Aitken Partners suggests that contract terminations and even refunds are possible scenarios depending on contract terms.

Because we tend to view football clubs through the prism of competition, mateship and tribalism, it can sometimes be easy to forget that their management are professionals, held to the same standards as any corporate executive. Let’s remember here that Essendon’s management and coaching staff are employees of Bombers members. And their job is to make decisions that execute the collective will of members, so as to maximise the utility – enjoyment, satisfaction etc – that those members derive from their membership dollars. How much satisfaction are you going to get from a club that no longer exists? In the financial transaction between Essendon members and club management, the latter have failed to live up to their end of the bargain.

If executives of one of Australia’s major companies showed similar judgment, you can be sure that shareholders would not only be demanding management heads on a platter, but also asking serious questions of the board who put them in charge. Bombers chairman Paul Little’s statement on the board’s latest decision to spare Hird – that “the board believes it would be potentially reckless to make any decisions of significance until there is further clarity on these crucial matters’’– hints at legal circumspection, but little else.

In the corporate world, management scandals usually see boards of directors at least try to deflect attention from their own governance failures by coming down hard on the executive team. In the huge accounting scandal that engulfed American company Tyco in the early 2000s, for example, the board responded by sacking the vast majority of the executive team, yet still found themselves – the entire board – turfed as well.

In comparison, Essendon’s board have barely scratched the surface of a legitimate response to the supplements scandal. This speaks of a board that is not only too close to its executive team, but also disrespectful toward its members.

Let’s hope Essendon members are more switched on than to allow their loyalty to the club to cloud their judgment. They must now exercise their rights. Demand that the board conduct a comprehensive management cleanout. And if they don’t get it – hell, maybe even if they do – use their voting power to clean out the board too. Essendon members have the power to ensure this never happens again. They should use it.