One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on October 07, 2016, 02:19:20 AM
-
What’s really wrong at Tigerland
Martin Hiscock
Herald Sun
October 7, 2016
IT is unprecedented that two independent groups have challenged the Richmond board simultaneously.
But there is good reason for it.
The Tigers board has lost its gloss. The club can expect an operating loss this year, it’s failed to get a female football team up or secure naming rights for Punt Rd.
Richmond is languishing in the lower quartile of sponsorship dollars and had a horror year on the field to top it off.
Next year will likely see reduced membership and attendances and the AFL has savagely cut Richmond’s prime-time Friday night games in expectation of this.
The club now holds the record for the longest Grand Final appearance drought and the Bulldogs rapid ascension has put Richmond’s dire situation into even greater perspective.
The board must focus on a more equitable Director renewal process.
Members should make the distinction between club and board. They should put the interests of the club and its members and fans ahead of the board. Too often voters do it the other way around.
Propped up by CEO Brendon Gale, who should be accountable to the board rather than a member of it, Peggy O’Neal is growing more and more out of touch with the members.
She recently referred to the Tigers as “my club”.
This resonated poorly with members far and wide, and is revealing. The comment is not consistent with a modern membership-driven organisation.
The CEO and longest standing board members set the culture of this club and right now it is contrived.
Only an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) election that removes the entire board, will achieve desperately needed cultural change at Tigerland.
Supporters are keen for a number of fresh faces on the board and a clear vision for 2017. The board flatly rejected Focus On Footy’s proposal to do just that.
Best practice for a member-based sporting club should be to call for nominations when a director retires but the Richmond board nominates its own candidates and gives them their imprimatur shortly before the AGM.
This promotes lack of competition that leads to self-satisfaction and complacency, the hallmarks of this board.
Only one current director has actually been initially elected; the rest have been nominated by friends on the board.
So when the President says you can run for election if you wish to be on the board, she knows and we know that’s very unlikely to work.
I agree with Jeff Kennett that board tenure should be limited. It’s not all right just because other clubs have long-standing directors and Presidents.
Richmond should take a lead here and make its conveniently loose constitution more robust. That’s good governance. As Kennett put it, if you can’t get it right after a decade, it’s time to go.
Yet Peggy O’Neal has just excused herself from election at the upcoming December AGM and negotiated nomination for another three years, which would take her to 14 years on the board.
That’s akin to a Prime Minister avoiding a general election and remaining in power for another three-year term.
Self-preservation is a priority at Punt Rd, not premierships.
In terms of football management, the board has been asleep at the wheel for over a decade.
The hardly independent and undisclosed Ernst & Young review into the numerous short-comings in the football department has been lengthy and expensive but achieved little.
Almost everyone has been retained with the underlings promoted.
It’s merely shifting the deck chairs and not addressing the greatest weakness - a lack of mentally tough and quality players.
How can Balme be empowered when the coaching changes were made before he even arrived? Was he really in their plans?
How does protecting Dan Richardson relate to real change and a ruthlessness to win? What is being done to address the blatant lack of development and savvy recruiting? Why isn’t there a Stephen Wells-type figure at the club? And what about the cap? How is this all affordable?
The board has failed to apply due diligence in a number of appointments and decisions.
Damien Hardwick’s unanimous two year contract extension was foolhardy.
To pay out his contract now would cost the club almost $2 million.
The board and its challengers have little alternative other than to support him. For this alone the board should resign.
With the coach pointing the finger at his coaches and players for the disastrous 2016 season and with five assistant coaches being sacked, there is instability and change.
Instability and change apparently equal chaos, we’re told. So, there was chaos before Focus On Footy challenged.
The club is at the crossroads.
The board needed to redefine success as premierships long ago.
There has been little accountability and now it risks being deposed if the most important KPI of all isn’t satisfactorily met in 2017.
Stay tuned Tiger fans...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/richmond/richmond-board-is-more-focused-on-selfpreservation-than-winning-premierships/news-story/d27c8531909ac4f6ec356f96eea0256a
-
I think this is a good article particularly its call for reform regarding the tenure of board members and its call for great accountability of the board. Change is needed at the board level to bring about cultural change.
-
Pity Dr Hiscock wasn't as articulate with his messaging when he and his FoF circus troop were bumbling along
Part of me says the article reeks of sour grapes, another example of someone saying what's wrong but not offering any alternate solution (consistent FoF BTW). Also, he says Peggy is out of touvh but in his interview on SEN the morning he met with he said he didn't want to dispose of her and wanted to kepp her... so which is it again?
Part of me thinks he made some good points
But I note (and I've harped on this many times) he points the finger of blame regarding the current board arrangement solely at the current board and makes no mention of the fact that the changes too the constitution that allows all these things he says are wrong, was passed by the members... Always wondered if the good Doctor voted at all because if he did he voted in favour of it . Alos temp appointments to the baord, that has been allowed under the constitution for a very long time
-
Should have said all this in the first place. More like the guy I know than the bumbling fool that came across.
I would vote for him as a single person on the board from that group if he puts his name up.
(At least I would get some inside info - maybe! ;D)
-
He has some points, such as limited tenures on the board, but we've heard all this before.
He seems so much more articulate than the presso and i guess that is why he wrote the article. He can get his point across without being challenged on the spot.
-
He has some points, such as limited tenures on the board, but we've heard all this before.
He seems so much more articulate than the presso and i guess that is why he wrote the article. He can get his point across without being challenged on the spot.
The trouble with politics is people judge you on your ability to answer questions under pressure and not on your policy and ideology. And whilst people should ALWAYS be directly challenged on decisions etc, it just creates space for the biggest liars and weasels to take positions of power - and not good policy makes.
-
Everything he has said is correct and obvious to all. The PR group stuffed up their chances. Had they focussed on the issues in the article they would have buried the yank and her blind mice.
WP don't agree with blaming the members for changing the constitution as it was a sneaky tactic by benny and peggy and the majority that attend the agm are board fanbois and cheerleaders anyway so won't vote against them. An egm needs to be called to change this back.
-
He has some points, such as limited tenures on the board, but we've heard all this before.
He seems so much more articulate than the presso and i guess that is why he wrote the article. He can get his point across without being challenged on the spot.
The trouble with politics is people judge you on your ability to answer questions under pressure and not on your policy and ideology. And whilst people should ALWAYS be directly challenged on decisions etc, it just creates space for the biggest liars and weasels to take positions of power - and not good policy makes.
That's true Dougy but being able to answer questions put to you on the spot may be see. As an indicator on your knowledge on the subject matter and also your ability to perform under pressure.
-
I reckon there will be people drooling for Hiscock to get on the board
-
I reckon there will be people drooling for Hiscock to get on the board
Drooling for Hiscock?
Interesting....
-
yeah gnaw on that for bit HRT hard to believe I know
-
Martin Hiscock
Almost lost me here
The club now holds the record for the longest Grand Final appearance drought
But truly lost me here
-
WP don't agree with blaming the members for changing the constitution as it was a sneaky tactic by benny and peggy and the majority that attend the agm are board fanbois and cheerleaders anyway so won't vote against them. An egm needs to be called to change this back.
Sorry Harry if you are going to whack individuals then whack the right ones
Peggy was not President when the constitutional changes were put forward, Gary March was so whack him. He pushed it
And as for it being a "sneaky tactic", yep you can mount a case for that.
But the facts are every voting member received notification of it either via email or mail. People simply didn't care enough to vote or in the case probably the majority didn't even bother reading what was sent. Think it's called apathy. But now everyone has issues with it
Sorry but there is fault on all sides with this, all sides
-
Best practice for a member-based sporting club should be to call for nominations when a director retires but the Richmond board nominates its own candidates and gives them their imprimatur shortly before the AGM.
LMAO. I want her gone
-
So when the President says you can run for election if you wish to be on the board, she knows and we know that’s very unlikely to work.
Ugly, arrogant.
-
Sorry but there is fault on all sides with this, all sides
And as a further example that there is fault on all sides is the fact that the constitutional changes were moved by Macek, who led the ticket in 2004 to challenge the board.
One can clearly make the case, as WP has in the case of FoF, that any challenging raft of candidates merely wants to replace the incumbents without much reform of the existing structures.
-
What were the changes made to the constitution?
They changed the vibe ???
-
What were the changes made to the constitution?
They changed the vibe ???
It changed the Board composition from all 9 board members being elected by us members to 6 elected by members and 3 appointed.
-
I remember when you were all begging for Hiscock and co, just saying.
-
What were the changes made to the constitution?
They changed the vibe ???
It changed the Board composition from all 9 board members being elected by us members to 6 elected by members and 3 appointed.
and also allowed the board to appoint a staff member as a director, hence Gale now a director.
-
I remember when you were all begging for Hiscock and co, just saying.
Would you prefer hiscock or hisballs?
-
>:(