The Petition.

[pahoffm]

Hello Everyone,

Sorry I am responding so late, I have just arrived home after taking my son to see the new Harry Potter film. It was good.

Initially I'd like to thank all of you who have supported me.
I'd also like to apologise to those people who have thought that I am big-noting myself. That is not my intention. Those who have been a part of our forum for the last few weeks would know that.

Alot of the discussion tonight has been about tickets. (I should have prepared myself a bit better before speaking on radio.) The history of the RFC over the last few years is about one ticket trying to force another ticket out of office. It has led to disunity within the club, which has reflected itself on the field. It has led to financial disaster and management instability, but worst of all it has disenfranchised many of its members. Members feel more distant than ever before. Many people who have contacted me still tell me that they received their ballots to vote after the closing date of the election. I received mine 5 days before closing. Rosy received hers the day before closing, others received them later. 4,000 of 27,000 current members had their votes counted in the last election. There is little doubt in members' minds that the current Board is a dictatorship. There are worthy potential board members who refuse to work with the current board because they do not wish to be part of a dictatorship. The management that we have at the club is a direct result of that dictatorship.

It is only by getting rid of that dictatorship that the truly worthy people at the club will feel comfortable being a part of a new board.

Let's put aside the tickets, let's put aside the politics, let's return the club back to unity.

There will be many who will discredit me, unfortunately that is the nature of politics.

I'm talking to Rosy, I will try, with her assistance, to put the petition on PRE so that members can give their names, addresses and membership numbers online and not have to worry about being absent on Sunday, or interstate, or overseas, or just uncomfortable about signing in public.

Again, thank you for your support.

 

[muncho]

There is no unity without an alternate well-organised agenda and that includes a professional, skilled and capable team who have the right passion, policies and capabilities to do the job.

Boards are organised professional units that are carefully constructed. They do not just happen for the good of the people, that’s fairytale stuff.

It is important to understand the outcome before you partition. The outcome that you seek needs to be carefully orchestrated, not just put forward on the hope that we get a credible alternative.

I don't believe you are grand standing, I do however believe that you are putting the cart before the horse and that the solution you seek may not be the success story you are wishing for.

 

[graystar1]

For what it is worth, here are some of my thoughts.

I will sign the petition, but wonder who we will get as replacement board members. The Company I worked for had an excellent board. In the main they had little idea of the industry in which the company was involved, but they were astute business men. The running of the business was left to the management team, which went from the CEO right to the bottom. Financial decisions were made by the board, as to investments, takeovers, etc., etc.

The executive team set the objectives, devised strategies to achieve those objectives, and plans to put those strategies into place. The board were advised and approval was always given.

IMHO., that's the type of board we need. Astute business men to handle the finances of the club, and to allow the executives of the club to pursue club activities. The new board members would not necessarily need to have been previous Richmond footballers, unless, of course they were to fit the criteria of business success people as well.

There are my thoughts for the day.

 

[pahoffm]

Hi Graystar,
I agree with you completely, The more this goes on, the more calls I receive, I now know things are going to turn out well for the RFC. There are alot of great people out there and they will be glad to return when the dictatorship is gone.

 

[Rosy]

I'm talking to Rosy, I will try, with her assistance, to put the petition on PRE so that members can give their names, addresses and membership numbers online and not have to worry about being absent on Sunday, or interstate, or overseas, or just uncomfortable about signing in public.

Again, thank you for your support.

I don't understand the politics and legal requirements of the petition and EGM really Phantom so I don't think I'm much use to you.

I have no objections to the petition being on here but if it's a matter of people posting their personal details for others to see I can't see them being willing to. I know I wouldn't.

I'd be surprised if you don't get the required number of signatures tomorrow anyway. That's the easy part.

I just hate this whole situation and am disappointed that the RFC have treated the members with such contempt.

The lack of information given out has caused a lot of damage. If all the members hear about goings on is Clinton Casey on The Footy Show or what's said in newspaper articles then there's no opion but to question things and it's led to major unrest.

I am am in two thoughts of mind.

In one way I'd love a formal ticket to be formed to challenge the present board and whichever one gets elected, we'd at least know the members chose it.

Would everyone on the new board have 3 year terms?

Is there a precedent where a new board has been elected entirely from a range of independant people who've thrown their hat in the ring?

When do interested candidates nominate? Before the EGM or after it?

Is there a limit to the number of people who can nominate? If you get 100 nominations it would spread the voting base a bit thin.

Geez I wish I had a crystal ball to know what the future holds for the RFC and how to best go about achieving a satisfactory result.

Go Tiges....Flog the Dockers. I need a fix of that winning feeling again.

 

[dcstar]

For what it is worth, here are some of my thoughts.
......
IMHO., that's the type of board we need. Astute business men to handle the finances of the club, and to allow the executives of the club to pursue club activities. The new board members would not necessarily need to have been previous Richmond footballers, unless, of course they were to  fit the criteria of business success people as well.

There are my thoughts for the day.

Would you like to explain how many "astute business men" we need on one board to handle the finances of one football club?

We've been through the on-going periods of having boards at Richmond full of "astute business men", and all we seem to have is a blinkered view of what a football club is and criminal deficiencies at board level of the other vital areas.

The board is currently made up of 9 positions, yes "astute business men" are important for some of those positions, but as I tried to make a point of in the last election the Richmond Board of Directors needs balance, not another set of people with similar backgrounds and outlooks.

If you want to repeat the mistakes of the past, another unbalanced board will increase the chances of that sort of thing happening.

 

[dcstar]

Rosy wrote:
........
Would everyone on the new board have 3 year terms?

No, 3 people would have terms that ended at the next AGM, 3 more would have an additional year, and the remaining 3 would get one more year on top of that for their terms.

Is there a precedent where a new board has been elected entirely from a range of independant people who've thrown their hat in the ring?

Not at Richmond, that's for sure.

When do interested candidates nominate?  Before the EGM or after it?

(I believe) that on the night at the meeting, each position would be called for nominations and then a vote - on the show of hands and whatever proxies were valid.

It would be interesting if Clinton Casey - or someone else - had thousands of proxies and ensured that they got voted back on, wouldn't it?

This scenario depends entirely if the EGM has been properly called for this sort of event. If the EGM resoulution hasn't been properly worded, then maybe nothing at all will happen at the EGM apart from some noise.

Is there a limit to the number of people who can nominate?  If you get 100 nominations it would spread the voting base a bit thin.

No limit whatsoever, I'd say.

 

[Rosy]

Rosy wrote:
........
Would everyone on the new board have 3 year terms?

No, 3 people would have terms that ended at the next AGM, 3 more would have an additional year, and the remaining 3 would get one more year on top of that for their terms.

Thanks David.

How is it decided which candidates get a few months or an additional year or two?

 

[tigerman]

Ideally a new ticket/s will be formed by the time of the EGM.

If not, and all that happens is a lot of passionate members and supporters attend, and get the opportunity to be heard, and get questions answered, then in my opinion that will be suffice.

Imagine what the RFC financial position would be, if not for the deal done to play home games at the Dome. Also on 2002 and 2003 performances 27.000 members for 2004, is an outstanding tally, but I wonder what it would of been, with out the gimmicks of phones and sunglasses.

Good on you Phantom I dips me lid.

CARN THE TIGES!!!!

 

[notorious219]

but worst of all it has disenfranchised many of its members. Members feel more distant than ever before. Many people who have contacted me still tell me that they received their ballots to vote after the closing date of the election. I received mine 5 days before closing. Rosy received hers the day before closing, others received them later. 4,000 of 27,000 current members had their votes counted in the last election.

I'm no legal eagle but wouldn't such a situation invalidate an election? If members don't have a reasonable opportunity to have a say then the election should be voided. At least I'd hope so in a perfect world.

Surely blank ballots could be posted online to avoid such a situation in the future. After all we're all online.

Something smells pretty bad about that last election.


8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

 

[sgloury]

Phantom,

I admire you for doing what you think is in the best interest of the Richmond Football Club. However I personally am concerned that the petition and EGM is too early in the season and will not allow enough time for a credible alternative ticket to be formed.

There are two questions that I have that you or someone else may be able to answer.

1/ Is it true that providing you get 100 signatures tomorrow that the EGM must be held within 21 days as reported in the Herald Sun this morning?

2/ Is it true that you go overseas for 6 weeks within the next week or so? If so, I am worried that the leader of the petition will not be in the country when the EGM is held and therefore the whole campaign could lack leadership and direction.

The problem I believe is the timing of the EGM. I think that members will vote to get rid of Casey providing there is a credible and viable alternative in the wings. Over the next ten weeks, I believe that an influential Richmond person will throw their hat into the ring to lead the club, but if the EGM has to be held within 21 days of tomorrow, it doesn't get any alternative ticket much breathing space to get their house in order.

 

[graystar1]

Would you like to explain how many "astute business men" we need on one board to handle the finances of one football club?
-Quote from David C.

Firstly, I should amend my phrase to business persons. I have no objection at all to a female being on the board of any organisation, provided they have some expertise to bring with them.

Secondly, I would not like to stipulate a number out of nine, but would expect that all board members have some knowledge and experience in overseeing the finances of a multi million dollar organisation.

Hope that clears my thinking on this issue.

 

[Zoso]

Go get `em Phantom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[WildTiger]

Phantom,

I admire you for doing what you think is in the best interest of the Richmond Football Club. However I personally am concerned that the petition and EGM is too early in the season and will not allow enough time for a credible alternative ticket to be formed.

There are two questions that I have that you or someone else may be able to answer.

1/ Is it true that providing you get 100 signatures tomorrow that the EGM must be held within 21 days as reported in the Herald Sun this morning?

2/ Is it true that you go overseas for 6 weeks within the next week or so?  If so, I am worried that the leader of the petition will not be in the country when the EGM is held and therefore the whole campaign could lack leadership and direction.

The problem I believe is the timing of the EGM. I think that members will vote to get rid of Casey providing there is a credible and viable alternative in the wings. Over the next ten weeks, I believe that an influential Richmond person will throw their hat into the ring to lead the club, but if the EGM has to be held within 21 days of tomorrow, it doesn't get any alternative ticket much breathing space to get their house in order.

Just to help you out YT from what I have read in previous posts is if Phanton gets 100 signatures tomorrow HE decides when he wants to lodge the petition, when the petition is lodged he has 21 days fromw hen it is lodged.

So if he gets 100 signatures tomorrow he doesnt have to lodge the petition immediately.

 

[FightingFury]

Phantom,

I admire you for doing what you think is in the best interest of the Richmond Football Club. However I personally am concerned that the petition and EGM is too early in the season and will not allow enough time for a credible alternative ticket to be formed.

There are two questions that I have that you or someone else may be able to answer.

1/ Is it true that providing you get 100 signatures tomorrow that the EGM must be held within 21 days as reported in the Herald Sun this morning?

2/ Is it true that you go overseas for 6 weeks within the next week or so?  If so, I am worried that the leader of the petition will not be in the country when the EGM is held and therefore the whole campaign could lack leadership and direction.

The problem I believe is the timing of the EGM. I think that members will vote to get rid of Casey providing there is a credible and viable alternative in the wings. Over the next ten weeks, I believe that an influential Richmond person will throw their hat into the ring to lead the club, but if the EGM has to be held within 21 days of tomorrow, it doesn't get any alternative ticket much breathing space to get their house in order.

Just to help you out YT from what I have read in previous posts is if Phanton gets 100 signatures tomorrow HE decides when he wants to lodge the petition, when the petition is lodged he has 21 days fromw hen it is lodged.

So if he gets 100 signatures tomorrow he doesnt have to lodge the petition immediately.

Just to confuse the matter further, l believe it must be lodged 21 days after the required signatures have been reached,and then a further 21 days is allowed before the EGM called (total 42 days).Thats my understanding anyhow.
Once again l reiterate l admire Phantoms initiative, but fear the timings wrong.
l concur with Young Tigers sentiments above :

 

[Tigerblood]

Personally I'm not interested in a board full of suits who have experience running multi-million dollar organisations. I wouldn't mind a few people in there who actually know something about football.

 

[dcstar]

Rosy wrote:
........
Would everyone on the new board have 3 year terms?

No, 3 people would have terms that ended at the next AGM, 3 more would have an additional year, and the remaining 3 would get one more year on top of that for their terms.

Thanks David.

How is it decided which candidates get a few months or an additional year or two?

Good question, I would assume if a board member is replaced then the person replacing him servers out the remainder of that person's term.

 

[dcstar]

Would you like to explain how many "astute business men" we need on one board to handle the finances of one football club?
-Quote from David C.

Firstly, I should amend my phrase to business persons. I have no objection at all to a female being on the board of any organisation, provided they have some expertise to bring with them.

Secondly, I would not like to stipulate a number out of nine, but would expect that all board members have some knowledge and experience in overseeing the finances of a multi million dollar organisation.

Hope that clears my thinking on this issue.

And that still doesn't address the problem of balance and diversity - and I don't consider the gender question relevant.

So you want only the Finance Directors of multi-million dollar organisations on the board in all 9 positions? (that's an extreme example, but it fits your specification).

Why do ALL directors apparently need this skill?, are other successful boards filled with this same category of person?, I doubt it.

Successful boards have people with skills and knowledge in all aspects of the organisation that are overseeing, people who may lack knowledge in one area take the advice of other with those attributes.

A board "full" of people who only qualify in any narrow category would most likely be a failure - especially in such a unique environment as a Melbourne based AFL club with our history.

A board full of ex-players would fail, a board full of "businessmen" would fail, a board full of people with great ideas but no record of implimenting them would fail, a board full of responsible, conservative financial managers would fail, a board full of people with no marketing understanding of all aspects of the AFL would fail, a board full of people without first-hand experience of playing of coaching would fail.

A board made up of the right mix of these people (and others) would at least have a chance of success.