Do you want a board election?

[Rosy]

I'd be really interested to read people's opinions on whether an election for positions on the board is in Richmond's best interests.

Peter Welsh, Tony Jewell and Gary March face re-election in January.

David Clayton has nominated.

Jim Giannopolous has nominated saying he won't be talked out of standing like he was last year.

I've read that a "high-powered business women involved with Victorian Major events is also considering nominating.

Clinton Casey would like to avoid an election because he's anxious the stability of the board is retained and also because it would cost around $70,000 to hold.

To me wanting to go unchallenged to retain stability sounds like not wanting to go out of a comfort zone.

$70,000 is a big money but I don't see that as a reason to go along year after year with an unchanged board, and the amount should have been budgeted for anyway.

I thought of doing a poll asking if people think an election is worthwhile and if they'd vote, but it would be better if people were willing to share their personal opinions on this.

We are one of the leading clubs in regard to giving votes to members and it would be interesting to see how many people intend to take advantage of that right.

I've never voted before but I will be this time. I feel that by doing so I've had some small input into the running of our club for the future

 

[Dean3]

I think it is always healthy to have people standing for election to the board. After all, it's up to the members to decide what is best for the club. The board must always accept that it is accountable to the membership.

Having said that, I've said many times recently that the absolutely last thing Richmond needs at the moment is boardroom instability and upheaval. I'd prefer to see some tweaking of the board at the edges, perhaps the replacement of TJ with Benny Gale, some well-handled and subtle changes that update the board, inject some new ideas and prepare for an eventual passing of the baton to whoever.

 

[Redford]

Clinton Casey’s comments are a disgrace and confirm to me that the present Board and management (particularly in the Football Department) are nothing but a bunch of incompetent ‘nest protectors’.

They constantly stick their head in the sand when presented with constructive criticism. They constantly provide members with spin doctored propaganda to suggest that everything is ok and that they know what they are doing when clearly the club has numerous and serious problems.

And now, for Casey to suggest that one of the biggest sporting clubs in the country does not need a Board election is just a downright insult to the intelligence of the members…….

$70,000. What a load of bullsh#t. I work in a reasonably senior position for a top 100 ASX listed company and I reckon I have a good feel for the costings of such things and that figure is just crap. We’re talking about the election of only 3 Board members – not an entire Board. How the hell could that constitute in Casey’s mind “instability” and also such an expense ?

How bloody unprofessional for this idiot to suggest we should just re-elect the incumbents unopposed. Wasn’t he once quoted as saying that he would strive to ensure that RFC always had the best available people at it to make it the best run club in the AFL ?

How the hell does that happen when you don’t want people to stand for election to the Board ?

You’re a disgrace Casey. Your conniving garbage doesn’t fool anyone. Get out. And take all the other incompetents you’ve aligned yourself with during your tenure such as Jewell, Welsh, Frawley, Hutchison, Beck etc. with you as well.

 

[Walster]

Gotta agree Redford I have heard some sh!te in my time but to say an election of three board members would bring instability is just beyond belief. Board elections are part of the process of a club or organization. It brings new people new ideas and cleans out the deadwood that may have been around too long. It keeps the club moving forward or at least stops it running off the rails. If not holding a board election is Casey's idea of how the club can move forward then I suggest he move forward himself and get on his bike and peddle off into the sunset.

 

[CanbTiger]

I haven't seen/ heard the full text of this speech so don't know if Casey provided any alternatives to the current system.

However, if he was advocating the abolition of members elections in favour of board appointments or the like then I would argue strongly in favour of elections. They are a vital means for members to have input into one aspect of the control of the club.

Having said that, I did consider the possibility Casey's comments were NOT influenced by some machiavellian intentions but rather possible member apathy towards voting.

Elections are all very well & good provided people VOTE!!!. If the RFC is like just about any other forum, jurisdiction, corporation, club etc that chooses not to mandate voting, a sizeable proportion of its membership will not vote. Sending voting details to these people could be expensive/ wasteful, although I'll take your word Redford that $70K is a little excessive as an estimate.

I've never followed the actual voting figures for the RFC but perhaps they are very low and Casey has reacted to that fact. An extreme example would be just 500 people choosing to vote from a total membership of 25000 or so.

In such circumstances Casey could be forgiven for wondering whether it was necessary to have elections AND whether the results of such elections actually reflected the views of members of the RFC.

Still, I think a better response to such disinterest would be to get members off their collective dates to vote (perhaps make voting compulsory?), rather than abolish elections altogether.

 

[nick the tiger]

I think Board elections are extremely healthy for any business/club. I would like to see a cost analysis explaining where the $70,000 would go in an election of 3 Board members. Are they laying on lobster and French champagne at the AGM? Personally I think the figure is a smokescreen to enable the existing Board to add people when/who they choose. IMO no one should be able to added to the Board without it's shareholders(members) electing them, as I think Casey was initially and others since. With the numbers we have on our Board, I think about 9 or 10, if all 3 happened to get ousted I don't think it would create too much instabililty and may make a statement to the Board. I just wish one of the candidates was running on a platform of reform of the football department.

 

[diggler]

Here here Redford. You are a breath of fresh air.
The best thing to happen to the club would be if Clinton Casey left and concentrated on what he does best:- building retirement villages and following Essendon.
We need fresh ideas.
Not tired old Tony Jewell, who's only claim to fame was coaching a Richmond premiership with a side that even Frawley would of done ok with and that one game wonder Peter Welsh. Even I could of got a kick in the 1980 grand final!
Get rid of them all!
We need to get someone ruthless running the club so that we arent stuck with 9th rate senior coaches and loser, hack assistants.

 

[rampagingtiger]

Lets kickem all out the dropkicks. Im voting for the greek guy and the business woman if she runs. And If Jim Boogy doesnt get drafted and he decides to run for the board im voting for the Boogy ticket :

 

[Joshnbeks Dad]

Whats wrong with an election. ???

I heard yesterday that Melb is in turmoil because there will be a fight for Board positions. IMO you are in more turmoil if noone wants to be on your Board. An election means there are a number of people willing to work for what they believe is in the best interests of the club.

Lets go to the next level and have the members vote for coach.

PS Ill help you pack Danny!!!!

 

[Roar34]

I think it is a healthy thing for board members to come up for re-election.

I have been on many committees and never had a problem with members having to face re-election on a regular basis. I'm not talking about a complete spill, which can be disastrous if too much experience is lost. BTW how many on our board? If it's say 10 and only 3 are coming up this time - fine, bring it on!

I don't know if this is the right thread for a view of the candidates but, here's my tuppence worth, one of the candidates did say he would support TJ and that doesn't sit well with me.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Don't mind having the occasionl election( damn near spelt that wrong) ;D The main thing is that the new contenders actually have something to offer the RFC,(management wise not secret brown baggies but they might help too). If they are just putting their hand up because they have got the *smile* up over something then it's a waste of time and energy.

 

[TigerFurious]

Don't mind having the occasionl election( damn near spelt that wrong) ;D The main thing is that the new contenders actually have something to offer the RFC,(management wise not secret brown baggies but they might help too). If they are just putting their hand up because they have got the sh!ts up over something then it's a waste of time and energy.

I'll second that. Pity knowone of substance has nominated for the board so we can vote out that old fossil Tony Jewell.

And well said Redford.

 

[tigerjoe]

Clinton Casey, whose arse are you trying to cover?
Maybe your own?

Of couse the election would be in the clubs best interests. We need to clean out alot of dead wood not just in our playing list, but in the football and administration side.

You won't hesitate at spending millions on your "Hawthorn" mansion, but somehow $70,000 (where did this figure come from?) can't be spent on matters of real importance to the Richmond Football Club.

 

[nwonash]

it's always great to get someone fresh with new ideas on board.

However, it's also good to have a stable board.

I'm in two minds on this one. Probably tend to say bring in someone who will rattle the cage and make the hard decisions the club needs. We really need a mix of current and new board members.

It's not just running the local footy club, its a business.

 

[DC8]

Some people seem a bit confused about the question of whether or not there will be an election. This is not something that the current Board or President Clinton get to decide. This is not surprising given that only two of the current Directors (Schwab and Welsh) were actually elected by the Members, rather than appointed.

There are three Board positions to be determined this year with three current Directors: Tony Jewell, Peter Welsh and Garry March, up for re-election.

If more than three peple nominate for the three positions there will be an election - irrespective of whether the current Board likes it or not.

As David Clayton, Jim Giannopolous (and possibly others) have already nominated - there will be an election this year.

The real question for members is that posed by nwonash: How do we get some fresh ideas, while also maintaining some continuity and stability?

It seems to me that the answer lies in getting a number (say four or five) new, energetic and committed Richmond people on the Board to generate a bit of excitement and a sense of direction.

Maybe it is time to say to a few current Directors: "Thanks for the contribution, it's appreciated but it's time to move on."

We need more than (retired/bored) businessman on the Board. We need people with an unwavering commitment to take the Club forward - to cut through the bull and the 'Old Boys' network- and to make everyone (including the football dept) accountable for their actions.

I say we should have a spill of all Board positions and let's ELECT the Directors the Members want and the Club needs!

 

[DC8]

Agree Tiger of Old that people have been discouraged in the past, but having read the entire thread I do think a couple of posters seemed to think that the Pres was the one who decided whether or not there would be an election.

But let's not split hairs, let's get to the key question of what sort of Board we want in the future.

As for your other "interesting" query - I suspect you are mistaken as to who the VP is.

Cheers.

 

[DC8]

One of only two current Directors who was elected by the members.

 

[DC8]

See my earlier post on this thread (which you responded to).

But I say again: the key question is what sort of Board do we want going forward?

Do we want those with the money? Or those with the desire and the ability?

 

[DC8]

Brendan Schwab is the Vice President. And even though I have no idea who you are. I'm pretty sure that you (or anyone else for that matter) are not associating him with the incident to which you refer.

 

[DC8]

The Board is:

Clinton Casey - President
Brendan Schwab - Vice President
Garry Cameron - Treasurer
Rob Turner
Don Lord
Michael Daddo
Garry March - Up for re-election
Tony Jewell - Up for re-election
Peter Welsh - Up for re-election