Tigers expect another board nomination (HeraldSun)

[Rosy]

Tigers expect another board nomination
30 November 2003 Sunday Herald Sun
By SCOT PALMER

RICHMOND officials will not be overly surprised if a third nomination for the club board is received before the deadline late this week.

So far, two members, business analyst Jim Giannopolous and computer technician David Clayton, have nominated for the poll in late January.

President Clinton Casey is anxious to talk to both candidates to inform them a poll could cost the Tigers more than $10,000.

 

[Rosy]

I wonder if the mention of the cost of the poll is a real concern to Clintion or whether it's just Palmers interpretation.
I can't see financial cost as a good reason not to have a board election. It would be cheaper to never make changes but it wouldn't necessarily be in the clubs best interests either.
I've read David Clayton mention a couple of times on Tiger Talk that Clinton told him it would be $70,000.

 

[TigerFury]

Doing some simple sums, every member would have to get a mail of the voting form plus info on each of the candidates.

That would be 25,000 * $0.50 = $12,500 just in postage. The there would be the cost of printing the forms plus the cost of staff to process the votes. It would be very easy to get the cost up to $20,000

 

[TigerMasochist]

Doing some simple sums, every member would have to get a mail of the voting form plus info on each of the candidates.

That would be 25,000 * $0.50 = $12,500 just in postage. The there would be the cost of printing the forms plus the cost of staff to process the votes. It would be very easy to get the cost up to $20,000

Gotta do the mailout twice one to send out the vote forms with candidate details provided and pre paid return mail, they would get discounts for the bulk mail out but the biggest costs would probably be the vote scrutineers, usually done by one of those big accounting and brokerage firms to ensure correct practice. Add printing costs and it would be easy to push costs out to seventy large.
The big question for all concerned should be what the contenders have to offer in taking the RFC forward. If it's just people wanting to get in because they aren't happy about the way we've gone recently it's a waste of time. They need to have something solid to offerand the time and commitment to put in long term not just a year or so.

 

[PuntRoadRoar]

i tend to agree TM, its all good to have change at the Richmond board but if these two guys are just there to add no real value to the board then it is a waste of RFC's time and money.

We already have wasted good money on past player contracts lets not go wasting more money on wasteful board nominations.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Bloody dumb idea hit me straight after I posted.


What would be the possibility of inviting the contenders, both the guys up for re-election and the new guys to post their views on PRE? Open,unbiased and with full right of courteous reply to one anothers comments and those of PRE members. the last time they had an election (damn I have trouble spelling that) we got a one page note from each contender that gave us bugger all info to go with.
Any opinions from other posters or would it be way to hot to handle?!?!

 

[CanbTiger]

Good idea TM, i for one would like to see that- it was bloody good stuff for david clayton to give that interview with rhett barlett.

 

[TigerFurious]

Nice idea TM but if current board members were to post on PRE they would probably breach Richmond's contract with Telstra for exclusive web rights.

Anyway it would still be good to hear from the challengers on PRE and I'm sure we could all be on our best behaviour ;D