Casey endorses incumbents

[TigersEatemAlive]

Casey endorses incumbents
6:40:37 PM Thu 15 January, 2004
richmondfc.com.au
Richmond Football Club President, Clinton Casey has thrown his weight behind current board members Tony Jewell, Peter Welsh and Gary March who are standing for re-election to the club’s board.

The trio is among a field of nine who will contest three vacancies.



“As President of the club, I am always looking for improvement and new ideas, and indeed there are some good people who have decided to nominate for this year’s election,” Casey said.

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=130759

 

[DC8]

Oh great. The President - see full article - is endorsing a bloke by claiming he played in a premiership he wasn't part of (Tony Jewell did NOT play in the 69 premiership).

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

 

[jeka]

Is it just me or is this a blatant case of bias?

In the run up to the election the club has given more publicity to the current incumbents. If I'm honest I don't know anything about these people and whether or not their doing a good job or if they deserve to be re-elected.

But the president coming out and saying that its hard to go past the incumbents means that those who don't have the insider information will just vote for them. Denying the opportunity to fresh blood to take the club forward.

Then again the other candidates could all be duds I just wouldn't know. :-\

 

[Roar34]

You're correct, DC8 - Jewell did not play in the 1969 GF.

Probably what Casey meant was Jewell played in the home-and-away games of 1969. A bad choice of words, perhaps.

 

[Rosy]

This is the complete article.

I kind of agree with you about the bias jeka.

I don't have a clue of the proper manner for the president to treat the election, but I'd think it would be fair if he introduced all nominees rather than imply a preference for people to vote for the incumbents.

It seems a bit of a rigged deck in this election to my way of thinking, but it's probably the clubs right to endorse their own interests.

I think the other nominees could at least have been named in the article.


Casey endorses incumbents
6:40:37 PM Thu 15 January, 2004
richmondfc.com.au
Richmond Football Club President, Clinton Casey has thrown his weight behind current board members Tony Jewell, Peter Welsh and Gary March who are standing for re-election to the club’s board.

The trio is among a field of nine who will contest three vacancies.



“As President of the club, I am always looking for improvement and new ideas, and indeed there are some good people who have decided to nominate for this year’s election,” Casey said.

“But when you look at the three positions up for consideration, I think it’s difficult to see past the people currently on the board.”

Casey said that while many of the ideas and intentions of the alternative candidates are good, the club has already made progress in the areas addressed by most of the candidates.

Tony Jewell played 80 senior games for the Tigers between 1964 and 1970, was a member of the 1967 and ’69 Richmond premiership teams, and later went on to coach the Tigers to the 1980 premiership.

Peter Welsh played 45 senior games including the 1980 premiership team.


http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=130759

 

[Roar34]

On second thoughts, having re-read the article courtesy of Rosy's posting, I am not sure that Casey actually said those words about Jewell's playing career.

Could be shoddy research by the author of the article!

 

[DC8]

On second reading you may be right Roar. Maybe the Prez didn't directly say that Jewell played in the 69 GF. Even if that is the case, how in the hell is an error as fundamental as that allowed to remain on the RFC's own website. Can we get some Richmond people at Richmond - PLEASE?????

And does anyone else (apart from Jeka) think it is a bit suss for the Preseident to be using the Club's resources to openly campaign for three candidates in the election.

This is all starting to get mighty smelly IMHO.

 

[DC8]

I saw that Captain and agree with you on that front also. I wonder if there is any way Rosy could combine the two threads or even set up a separate 'election' thread. This election is shaping up as more interesting that many of us (me at least) originally thought and I really want to exercise my vote carefully.

As they say in the classics: "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells like a duck and tastes like a duck, it's probably...a duck!"

 

[om21]

Can we get some Richmond people at Richmond - PLEASE?????

And does anyone else (apart from Jeka) think it is a bit suss for the Preseident to be using the Club's resources to openly campaign for three candidates in the election.

My exact same thoughts. I only started getting into the election yesterday as my papers came in the mail. I spent time reading about each person and I think that the question above is vital.

Casey, I dont like. He isnt a Richmond man.......people wonder why KB is still pissed? Its partly because the guy running our club is a Bombers supporters. I think of all the candidates I read, only one was pushing that view and he caught my eye.

No bias.......no crap......just on-field success. With on-field success, you will see how members flock. Want to break 30thousand? Make the finals two years in a row.

 

[hutstar]

Casey is not an employee of the club, he is an elected official. It is perfectly legitimate for him to endorse the candidates he feels should be on the board.
The question is whether it is appropriate for an employee of the club to be writing an article that gives time to promoting certain candidates. I suspect the club would argue that it is legitimate to report on the opinions of the President (which i suppose it is), but my question is this:
Who wrote the article, and is he/she an independent souce of info?

For mine, the club website should not contain any election related material that is not by-lined, and ultimately should not be written by someone who is an employee of the club.

Its a tough one to deal with, because ultimately those editing and writing on the club website are probably employees- how can they be objective reporting on issues relating to their ultimate employers? Can a story be written now, by an employee, presenting an objective view on the other candidates, when the employee knows that the President supports the incubent board?

It isn't a big deal ultimately, as I think that Casey and the board would not impart direct influence on the media employees, and the article was a report simply stating the views of the club president. It raises a larger issue though; Should there not be an independent site that gives even press time to all the candidates?

Someone say PRE?

Rosy, I reckon you should open a new section especially for the election, and make all candidates aware of it. This section should then be linked on the RFC site, and be available for the use only of candidates to post statements etc. as they wish.

hutstar.

 

[Rosy]

Rosy, I reckon you should open a new section especially for the election, and make all candidates aware of it. This section should then be linked on the RFC site, and be available for the use only of candidates to post statements etc. as they wish.

hutstar.

Actually as I was driving home tonight I thought about making a temporary board devoted to the elections.

I don't understand how I can make the candidates aware of PRE hutstar, I don't have contact numbers or addresses and I wouldn't expect the club to give out that kind of information. I'm not sure they'd take up the offer anyway seeing none of them have chosen to post here off their own bat.

There is no way in the world the RFC would link to PRE. Even if they wanted to, which I doubt, they have their contract with Telstra that prevents them doing so. Even if they didn't have the contract I couldn't see them linking to this site, although they are more than welcome to.

I haven't even received my voting papers yet. Is there a kind PRE member out there willing to scan the candidates flyers so we can all read them?

I hope my papers come in time. It's cutting it a bit fine when it will be at least Monday before they arrive now, and the return postage from here can take 2 days. If they do come Monday it will only give me a few hours to study them.

 

[Rosy]

Casey is not an employee of the club, he is an elected official. It is perfectly legitimate for him to endorse the candidates he feels should be on the board.

Of course Clinton is entitled to endorse who he likes.

That's not an issue with me. The issue is that it has been done on the official Richmond Football Club site.

That site is for the information of the supporters and as such should be unbiased and give ALL candidates the same opportunity.

The RFC site is not the appropriate place for the presidents personal campaigning imo and I think it's an insult to both the supporters and the other nominees..

 

[nwonash]

just scanned and emailed them to you Rosy,

happy reading

 

[Rosy]

Thanks a million nwonash. I really appreciate it.

I'll post them on the new election board tomorrow. Been a big day and I don't have the energy or the inclination to do it tonight. *insert sleepy yawn smiley*

 

[Roar34]

Good post Hutstar, and thanks Rosy for the looked-forward-to election board.

Ta also to Nwonash for making the flyers available though, as I predicted somewhere else that it would be interesting to see if the promised post-out ever reaches the wilds of Castlemaine, I will probably be in the same boat as Rosy in that I will not have time to do anything about the election. (All of this is either very badly organised or, on the other hand, very cleverly orchestrated!)

I have already posted on another thread that the two threads in question are the same (subject matter). So it would be good if Rosy includes both - also the thread on how past RFC AGMs have been conducted - should be compulsory reading for all Tiger members.

Would also provide yet more ammunition for the conspiracy theorists, eh, DC8?

 

[DC8]

Can I add my thanks to Rosy for taking up the suggestion of a separate election thread.

Like you Roar, I thought the two threads in question had much the same content and would be better combined.

For the record though Roar, I'm not suggesting there is a conspiracy in operation here. I'm suggesting that those who are acting (IMHO) innappropriately are doing so completely openly, which frankly only adds to the arrogance and unaccountability of those involved.

 

[Roar34]

Sorry DC, I didn't mean to make it look like you were talking conspiracy.

Sometimes I am thinking way ahead of what I'm typing, worst of not being a touch typist!

I wanted to include you in my last post as you were also on the samewave length, just came out wrong.

 

[Roar34]

I sent before I had finished, DC.

Yes, it is arrogant the way things are being run.

Almost like saying we don't count.

Just take a look at what has been written about T. Jewell and his attitude.

How arrogant is that not to prepare anything for the voters! As I have said before: it's about time something was done about this Old Boys' setup.

 

[bg25]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter who endorses who - the RFC is a democracy and we all get to vote. If you don't like the incumbents, don't vote for them.

 

[DC8]

Agree, agree and agree again Roar. I'm getting thoroughly fed up with the 'members are mushrooms' attitude that seems to be characterising OUR club.

You're absolutely right that some at the top don't give two hoots about the members. In fact, I doubt they'd know one if they fell over one.

When was the last time anyone saw a board member in the red seats (or their equivalent in the Southern Stand) or behind the goals at the PRE?