One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on July 28, 2016, 06:56:28 PM
-
Tom Browne on Ch 7 news just said he believes Benny Gale has called in external consultants Ernst & Young to seek answers and determine what went wrong this season.
Browne said Benny refused to confirm or deny it. The club's response was [paraphrasing] that internal and external opinions are sought on matters affecting the club.
-
Just ask me
It's very easy
As for Benny , good luck in your new role at MCC 😉
-
Are they really going to help us with on-field performance-related matters like coaching, fitness, training standards, football culture, drafting & recruiting etc? Will they sub-contract football people for that?
-
Just ask me
It's very easy
As for Benny , good luck in your new role at MCC 😉
No thanks.
History proves you have strong tendencies to overrate some players and have fractured relationships with key personnel based on emotion. More of the same if you are asked.
The club needs rational thinkers at this time.
-
More transparent unaccountability from Gale.
Yeh, pay that mob to work out that you all wanted to keep your jobs under the guise of seeing the plan out.
Problematic for you is, the football world knew you failed years ago.
-
More transparent unaccountability from Gale.
Yeh, pay that mob to work out that you all wanted to keep your jobs under the guise of seeing the plan out.
Problematic for you is, the football world knew you failed years ago.
It's all in the 'scapegoat' brief. Just remember who's paying you lads. Now go find.
-
Just ask me
It's very easy
As for Benny , good luck in your new role at MCC 😉
No thanks.
History proves you have strong tendencies to overrate some players and have fractured relationships with key personnel based on emotion. More of the same if you are asked.
The club needs rational thinkers at this time.
Gotta luv Hammer 🔨⏱
-
Just ask me
It's very easy
As for Benny , good luck in your new role at MCC 😉
If he runs the MCC, he should renegotiate a better deal at all MCG games we play that we get PUNT RD END!
-
Just ask me
It's very easy
As for Benny , good luck in your new role at MCC 😉
No thanks.
History proves you have strong tendencies to overrate some players and have fractured relationships with key personnel based on emotion. More of the same if you are asked.
The club needs rational thinkers at this time.
Gotta luv Hammer 🔨⏱
Point in case
-
This group analyse business operations not football depts.
-
Yeah that's what I thought....won't fix our football problems....
-
It's so Benny can get a pat on the back from people outside AFL circles
-
Yeah that's what I thought....won't fix our football problems....
But by reviewing business operations they assess the processes in place for things like internal reviews and how the club goes about them....
So it could have benefits
-
This group analyse business operations not football depts.
Correct. A bunch of accountants reviewing our football operations. To be seen doing something. EY reviewing your football operations lol. An exercise to support the scapegoating and to further justify their decisions.
-
Yeah that's what I thought....won't fix our football problems....
But by reviewing business operations they assess the processes in place for things like internal reviews and how the club goes about them....
So it could have benefits
Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board...... :whistle
That was and remains a disgrace.
-
One of the replies from Peggy indicated that we have had 3 reviews in the last eight years by the Hay Group.
This would make the fourth external review.
If we get reviews from external sources for our business operation's why does our club review our football dept. internally all the time?
What is the point of having all the lawyers accountants and business experience on the board to then spend money on an external review every two years.
Our football dept. has not had one in seven years, spend the money on an external review of the football dept.
It is more important than the business side at the moment.
-
Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board...... :whistle
That was and remains a disgrace.
The CEO sitting on the baord is the fault of the members, that is an absolute FACT
The members either voted for it (those who turned up the AGM and voted) or they complacent ones did nothing by not turing up and voting
I was there that night and on the night 4 people voted against it, i was one of those people. So my conscience on this little issue is clear.
No point sooking about it as the members allowed it ut now are up in arms about it
-
Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board...... :whistle
That was and remains a disgrace.
The CEO sitting on the baord is the fault of the members, that is an absolute FACT
The members either voted for it (those who turned up the AGM and voted) or they complacent ones did nothing by not turing up and voting
I was there that night and on the night 4 people voted against it, i was one of those people. So my conscience on this little issue is clear.
No point sooking about it as the members allowed it ut now are up in arms about it
Can you remind me WP as I can't recall if this was put to the members beforehand or was this dished up on the night of the AGM?
-
Why did they propose it WP? Any reason for this? I for one wasn't aware about it after the event but had a few things going on at the time. How did they inform the members or did they just sneak it in at the AGM?
-
Gale had some ok ideas and DID do a couple of things that helped put the club into another direction BUT he's stuffed up in the last few years and not had the good faith to fall on his own sword.
-
Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board...... :whistle
That was and remains a disgrace.
The CEO sitting on the baord is the fault of the members, that is an absolute FACT
The members either voted for it (those who turned up the AGM and voted) or they complacent ones did nothing by not turing up and voting
I was there that night and on the night 4 people voted against it, i was one of those people. So my conscience on this little issue is clear.
No point sooking about it as the members allowed it ut now are up in arms about it
and if they want, the members can still do something about it, but in the great aussie tradition, prefer to whine and bitch rather than actually do something about it
-
Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board...... :whistle
That was and remains a disgrace.
The CEO sitting on the baord is the fault of the members, that is an absolute FACT
The members either voted for it (those who turned up the AGM and voted) or they complacent ones did nothing by not turing up and voting
I was there that night and on the night 4 people voted against it, i was one of those people. So my conscience on this little issue is clear.
No point sooking about it as the members allowed it ut now are up in arms about it
and if they want, the members can still do something about it, but in the great aussie tradition, prefer to whine and bitch rather than actually do something about it
Some people are doing something. Just hang on or even better join the revolution....
-
who?
what?
where?
when?
You dont want the ceo sitting on the board? simple solution is to pass a motion, have it seconded and vote on it the next agm. Ill give you my proxy for it.
-
and mine
-
When the time comes, I'll pm both of you then.
-
Yeah that's what I thought....won't fix our football problems....
But by reviewing business operations they assess the processes in place for things like internal reviews and how the club goes about them....
So it could have benefits
Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board...... :whistle
That was and remains a disgrace.
Members fault
-
Yeah that's what I thought....won't fix our football problems....
But by reviewing business operations they assess the processes in place for things like internal reviews and how the club goes about them....
So it could have benefits
Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board...... :whistle
That was and remains a disgrace.
Members fault
Again?
-
Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board...... :whistle
That was and remains a disgrace.
The CEO sitting on the baord is the fault of the members, that is an absolute FACT
The members either voted for it (those who turned up the AGM and voted) or they complacent ones did nothing by not turing up and voting
I was there that night and on the night 4 people voted against it, i was one of those people. So my conscience on this little issue is clear.
No point sooking about it as the members allowed it ut now are up in arms about it
Who proposed the amendment WP?
-
EY is not just an accountancy firm. It specializes in operational reviews and root cause analysis work in operations and is deemed a global leader in these areas. And a couple of the managing partners in EY Vic are big Tiger supporters.
-
Can you remind me WP as I can't recall if this was put to the members beforehand or was this dished up on the night of the AGM?
It was a change to the constitution
It certainly wasnt dished up on the night. Every single leagal requirement for a change in constitution was followed
Members were supplied with all the details weeks before the AGM. We had discussions going on here about it
From the discussions back then Majority on here didn't have an issue with it at the tine because back then the majority thought Benny Gale could walk on water, could do no wrong. Now the same folks have an issue with it
The other change was the board having the ability to appoint 3 directors as opposed all directors needing to be elected
Will say it again. You cant get all angry about the current set up seeing every voting member could have stopped it
Why did they propose it WP? Any reason for this? I for one wasn't aware about it after the event but had a few things going on at the time. How did they inform the members or did they just sneak it in at the AGM?
Why? It was recommended via one of those external reviews of operations and also to bring us into line with other similar organisation
Will repeat it wasn't some sneaky little thing bought up on the night. All legal requirements were followed. All members received the relevant info about it
But when it came to vote no one bothered. On the night 4 people were the Nos. Everyone else in the room voted yes
And can I add they were sheep because as soon as Benny put his hand up to vote yes, the rest of room followed... apart from the no votes
So and sorry if it offends people but members are to blame here, not the club. Time members took responsibility for thier actions or to be more precise in this case their non actions.
-
how can you say the people that instigated and pushed the change are not responsible for it?
-
Who proposed the amendment WP?
The board
But who proposed it really isnt relevant
It could have easily been defeated if people had bothered to take an interest and vote
All the things that had me believing at the time it was a very poor idea have come to fruition
We are reaping what we sowed
People keep banging on about complacency.on the board and with the club
Stuth members were bloody complacent on this issue
Would love to know how many of these people disillusioned with the club and considering running for the board were there that night qand voted YES or just didnt bother
-
how can you say the people that instigated and pushed the change are not responsible for it?
Easily. They are a small number. They couldn't just do it without the members voting
It had to be voted on. It could only succeed if the YES vote was greater than the NO vote.
If members (especially those who are now showing their collective angst against it) had bothered to show some interest, turned up on the night and voted it may not have gone thorugh.
It did so here we are
-
yet it never would have happened if they never proposed it in the first place, but they take no responsibility for it?
ok then.
-
Thanks WP. Now you've refreshed my memory I'll go outside and commit harikari. :banghead
-
Members fault .... again.
-
yet it never would have happened if they never proposed it in the first place, but they take no responsibility for it?
ok then.
Yes they propsed it and they are responsible for that
But the members are also responsible and that cannot be ignored
Whack the club but whack the members too. They are not blameless here.
But i suppose its easier to just blame club and not say others are as equally responsible
-
Perhaps if some of you weren't so worried what Russo was or wasn't going to, you would have noticed that little tactic which happened around the same time
Who cares anyway his gone soon enough just like captain shettino on the costa cordia
-
Perhaps if some of you weren't so worried what Russo was or wasn't going to, you would hand noticed that little tactic which happened around the same time
Who cares anyway his gone soon enough just like captain shettino on the costa cordia
Not gone at all..... :shh
-
Are these idiots serious are they that stupid God fn help me
-
Can you remind me WP as I can't recall if this was put to the members beforehand or was this dished up on the night of the AGM?
Why did they propose it WP? Any reason for this? I for one wasn't aware about it after the event but had a few things going on at the time. How did they inform the members or did they just sneak it in at the AGM?
Here it is discussed in late November 2011. The AGM that year was on Dec. 21 (so 3-4 weeks later than the annoucement).
Constitution changes explained
richmondfc.com.au
11:39 AM Mon 28 Nov, 2011
Richmond President Gary March spoke to richmondfc.com.au to explain the changes to the Club’s constitution.
RFC: What is the major constitutional change being proposed by the board?
Gary March: It is widely-acknowledged, best practice among leading corporations, that boards should comprise a mix of elected and appointed directors. The current Richmond constitution allows for nine elected directors - the board is proposing that a constitutional amendment be made to allow for three directors to be appointed. A board of nine would therefore comprise six elected directors and three appointed directors. The appointed directors would not be allowed to serve more than two terms.
RFC: Why is this good for my football club?
GM: Like many corporations and other elite sporting clubs - including other highly-successful AFL clubs - this change will enable the board to identify people with the expertise, and skill set, to significantly enhance the business of the Richmond Football Club. This would be a very positive move. The AFL landscape is becoming increasingly competitive and it is important that we provide ourselves with every opportunity to engage the best people to give us the best chance to compete and lead.
RFC: Are there any other changes that I need to be aware of?
GM: It has also been proposed by the board that - at its discretion - a senior executive of the Club may be appointed to the board as an Executive Director. In making this change, and to accommodate an additional appointment, we are also proposing that the constitution allows for the board to comprise up to 10 directors.
RFC: Why did the board decide to make these changes now?
GM: The board has undertaken a comprehensive review of its governance structures, and practices, to ensure it operates effectively on behalf of the members. The proposed changes are in line with the recommendations that came out of this review and will ensure our Club’s board becomes more efficient and effective.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/126610/default.aspx
OER's thread about it at the time: http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=14398.msg271411#msg271411
-
My view 5 years on about this hasn't changed.
I have no issue with the idea of an executive director if it's Benny Gale. It's pretty standard practice to have managing directors on company boards.
However I agree with Ramps about having non-elected board members. It's not as though under the current constitutional arrangements that the Board can't appoint and bring in people they want. If a potential board member turns down an opportunity to be on the Board because he/she is afraid of being held to account for their performance every 3 years via a democratic vote by the members (ie. shareholders) of the Club then you have to ask if that person is the right person to be director. Is the Club now saying as members we can't be trusted and are too stupid to understand to do what is best for the Club ::). Obviously some at the top need a reminder without us there wouldn't be a Club to be a Board member of after the past 30 years of abysmal failure.
I was astonished at the time [and still are] that only about 4? people [IIRC all from OER] out of 70 members attending the AGM that year stood up for members' full democratic rights and voted against the constitutional changes.
I remember someone asking me straight after the vote why I voted against it and the reason was that this stripping of our full democratic rights will comeback to bite us as members in the years to come.
At the time in 2011, everyone was happy with the direction the Club was heading after only two years of Benny Gale and Hardwick, but supporting democracy isn't about when things are going right. It's about when things go wrong and the ability for members to make ALL directors accountable and use that democratic vote to make changes to the Board if need be.
It's been a harsh lesson for RFC members and supporters in what you lose when you directly or indirectly [by not voting = chairman proxy votes] give up your democratic rights based on blind faith or apathy. The RFC belongs to us who bleed yellow and black and the Board and everyone underneath works for our club not theirs.
-
yet it never would have happened if they never proposed it in the first place, but they take no responsibility for it?
ok then.
Yes they propsed it and they are responsible for that
But the members are also responsible and that cannot be ignored
Whack the club but whack the members too. They are not blameless here.
But i suppose its easier to just blame club and not say others are as equally responsible
um, no one has said that the members are not to blame, but someone has said the club is not?
-
That night at the AGM was intimating to say the least
I attended
Few out there put there hand up
-
Perhaps if some of you weren't so worried what Russo was or wasn't going to, you would have noticed that little tactic which happened around the same time
Who cares anyway his gone soon enough just like captain shettino on the costa cordia
Thats is wrong
The constitutional changes happened 5 years ago. Not last year
If yiu going to whack get your facts and timelines right.
And don't forget your mate Joe said Hardwick was a good coach and should be kept
-
Captain Shettino LOL!
-
If major changes don't happen at the end of the year well we are completely stuffed.
All coaches accept Rutten must go.
At least 10 - 15 players must go.
That many new players to come in including a bloody star or two.
And pee that Hartley off and ask for a bloody refund!
We are so far off it its not funny :banghead
-
Perhaps if some of you weren't so worried what Russo was or wasn't going to, you would have noticed that little tactic which happened around the same time
Who cares anyway his gone soon enough just like captain shettino on the costa cordia
Thats is wrong
The constitutional changes happened 5 years ago. Not last year
If yiu going to whack get your facts and timelines right.
And don't forget your mate Joe said Hardwick was a good coach and should be kept
Is that tears I read.
Sure is.
You say Russo didn't give any vision, but then happy to pick out the one line which he would have just said to keep supporters like you happy. How many presidents have said the coach is safe but then a week later his gone. Wake the stuff up WP.
U were very vocal against Russo so tell me how is Peggy going for you?? Still got your great vision for the future of our club run by this fool and her sidekick fail
-
Is that tears I read.
Sure is.
You say Russo didn't give any vision, but then happy to pick out the one line which he would have just said to keep supporters like you happy. How many presidents have said the coach is safe but then a week later his gone. Wake the stuff up WP.
U were very vocal against Russo so tell me how is Peggy going for you?? Still got your great vision for the future of our club run by this fool and her sidekick fail
Gee your cheapshots when challenged & when you are called out for being wrong are childish at best but I digess
In answer to your question I think the board from the president down to the CEO who is on the board as well have been shocking this year. I said when they extended Hardwicks contract they were wrong in doing so. How convenient that you fail to acknowledge that point. It was a stupid decision and now we are stuck with this mess.
Just because i don't sit and attack a person's performance based on their gender like you do doesnt mean i think they are doing a good job.
The president's blind fairh in the CEO, actually the entire board's blind faith in the CEO is the biggest mistake they've collectively made in the last 12 months. Because that faith resulted in the contract extension.
Clear enough for you
-
Best external consultants at this point would be Tobin Brothers. :shh
-
Best external consultants at this point would be Tobin Brothers. :shh
:lol
-
Best external consultants at this point would be Tobin Brothers. :shh
:lol
:lol :lol
-
Members fault
Again?
What do you mean again?
-
Best external consultants at this point would be Tobin Brothers. :shh
:lol
:lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol
-
Who proposed the amendment WP?
The board
But who proposed it really isnt relevant
It could have easily been defeated if people had bothered to take an interest and vote
All the things that had me believing at the time it was a very poor idea have come to fruition
We are reaping what we sowed
People keep banging on about complacency.on the board and with the club
Stuth members were bloody complacent on this issue
Would love to know how many of these people disillusioned with the club and considering running for the board were there that night qand voted YES or just didnt bother
If you were there WP surely you would know who proposed it and seconded it.
Sure you voted against it but those who proposed it need to be held accountable because they sponsored the motion.
-
Is that tears I read.
Sure is.
You say Russo didn't give any vision, but then happy to pick out the one line which he would have just said to keep supporters like you happy. How many presidents have said the coach is safe but then a week later his gone. Wake the stuff up WP.
U were very vocal against Russo so tell me how is Peggy going for you?? Still got your great vision for the future of our club run by this fool and her sidekick fail
Gee your cheapshots when challenged & when you are called out for being wrong are childish at best but I digess
In answer to your question I think the board from the president down to the CEO who is on the board as well have been shocking this year. I said when they extended Hardwicks contract they were wrong in doing so. How convenient that you fail to acknowledge that point. It was a stupid decision and now we are stuck with this mess.
Just because i don't sit and attack a person's performance based on their gender like you do doesnt mean i think they are doing a good job.
The president's blind fairh in the CEO, actually the entire board's blind faith in the CEO is the biggest mistake they've collectively made in the last 12 months. Because that faith resulted in the contract extension.
Clear enough for you
incorrect. I think woman can be good leaders (Westpac, Hilary, Marie Barone, etc) but not at the RFC. The club is littered with females on the field so you want to get a female president who will wrap them up in cotton wool like she has done with dimwit. Come on..She is behind this stability rubbish that much is guaranteed. We dont want to be known as the tigers of old aye peggy so lets give every stuffer 8 year deals while our best 3 or 4 players approach 30.
It was a bad move to begin with and my stance has not changed. As i see it there should be no one on the board that was around for those wallace years, as most of them have.
In my opinion she was chosen because we wanted to be seen as a leader in gender equality but its backfired because she is bloody hopeless regardless of her gender. Gale and Peggy Sue have truly stuffed this right up, and have no where to hide now, which is why i am so certain that dimwit will be our coach for at least until mid next year or later, because the pair of them are too gutless to admit they stuffed up.
The best thing we can do as a football club is replace the lot of them except speed and start again. Problem is who is going to do it.
Truth and reality is we are completely stuffed until Gale leaves or gets the arse. FACT.
-
Is that tears I read.
Sure is.
You say Russo didn't give any vision, but then happy to pick out the one line which he would have just said to keep supporters like you happy. How many presidents have said the coach is safe but then a week later his gone. Wake the stuff up WP.
U were very vocal against Russo so tell me how is Peggy going for you?? Still got your great vision for the future of our club run by this fool and her sidekick fail
Gee your cheapshots when challenged & when you are called out for being wrong are childish at best but I digess
In answer to your question I think the board from the president down to the CEO who is on the board as well have been shocking this year. I said when they extended Hardwicks contract they were wrong in doing so. How convenient that you fail to acknowledge that point. It was a stupid decision and now we are stuck with this mess.
Just because i don't sit and attack a person's performance based on their gender like you do doesnt mean i think they are doing a good job.
The president's blind fairh in the CEO, actually the entire board's blind faith in the CEO is the biggest mistake they've collectively made in the last 12 months. Because that faith resulted in the contract extension.
Clear enough for you
incorrect. I think woman can be good leaders (Westpac, Hilary, Marie Barone, etc) but not at the RFC. The club is littered with females on the field so you want to get a female president who will wrap them up in cotton wool like she has done with dimwit. Come on..She is behind this stability rubbish that much is guaranteed. We dont want to be known as the tigers of old aye peggy so lets give every stuffer 8 year deals while our best 3 or 4 players approach 30.
It was a bad move to begin with and my stance has not changed. As i see it there should be no one on the board that was around for those wallace years, as most of them have.
In my opinion she was chosen because we wanted to be seen as a leader in gender equality but its backfired because she is bloody hopeless regardless of her gender. Gale and Peggy Sue have truly stuffed this right up, and have no where to hide now, which is why i am so certain that dimwit will be our coach for at least until mid next year or later, because the pair of them are too gutless to admit they stuffed up.
The best thing we can do as a football club is replace the lot of them except speed and start again. Problem is who is going to do it.
Truth and reality is we are completely stuffed until Gale leaves or gets the arse. FACT.
You are incorrect Angus in why she was chosen.
The board was split 50:50 (4 to 4). Speed was brought onto the board with the understanding he would be the next president. The problem was that there was the O'Shannassy backed group which did not want this to happen. In the end it was going to be a mess. So it was decided by both groups that neither should take power and that Peggy would lead as a "peacekeeper". That is the only reason she got the gig as she was seen as "neutral".
I think that now that the board has lost direction, Peggy must take responsibility for these mistakes. She must show strength and ask for Gale's resignation because it was he who advised the board to extend his contract by 2 years. If she is unable to do this then she must go too.
There is no point being president of a club that does nothing to correct mistakes that have been made. Peggy has never wanted to "rock the boat" and has wanted to stand back and give the plan a chance to work. However, this is akin to me seeing a patient worsening in their health, believing the treatment I instituted was the correct one, and ignoring the cold hard facts that I am wrong. If I don't admit my errors the patient will die. If Peggy does't admit to her errors, the club will continue be a basket case for an indefinite period of time.
Everybody makes mistakes. Fools are the ones that refuse to correct them when they are painfully obvious for all to see.
-
The definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect a different result = Richmonds recruiting of players who can't get game in the seniors at their existing club and expect them to be stars.
Richmond has done a reasonable job off the field ( financial and operational)it's time to turn around the on field performance and never give up attitude and aggression you must have.
-
So Peggy was brought in as a peace keeper rather than someone who has the tools to do the job? Yet some voted for her on this basis. Classic if true but i still think there's an element of gender equality in her posting. Who wouldn't have guessed a circuit breaker and a great outcome just happened to be a female. Come on. Tell me who exactly decided she was the Neutral choice out of Maurice and Speed?
This further underlines why she has no place running our football club. After all she was asked to join the board by G Miller right. stuff she must be good then aye knowing that blokes eye for talent.
She has no idea mate and the funniest thing I have heard all year is you hoping she has the smarts or guts to sack Gale.
Not going to happen pal. She is a weak president who doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings especially Brendans
-
Good posting Angus
-
So Peggy was brought in as a peace keeper rather than someone who has the tools to do the job? Yet some voted for her on this basis.
Newsflash for you Angus the members DONT elect the president.
We elect people to the board; when there is an election.
The board elect the president/chairman, not the members
She hasn't faced an election recently because when her term has been up, she has been re-elected unopposed
And to answer your question
Tell me who exactly decided she was the Neutral choice out of Maurice and Speed?
It was Gary March's recommendation. She was not aligned to any "side" and the other 2 who wanted the top job agreed with her taking the gig...everyone saw it as the right compromise...so why dont' you hand out some whacks to them
-
Not sure what post your reading but it's not mine
Who said members elected her back then?? I said some voted for her eg the board back then on the basis of being a peace keeper between Speed and Maurice.
I also whacked all of them when I said they must all go, except speed. Tell me how long had speed been on the board when this vote occurred?? Give him the top job like he should have got it back then.
One thing members voted was not to have Russo join the the old and stale board that mostly had been around since Wallace. Some handpicked by Gregory Miller.
How has that working for you now. :lol :lol :lol
before you spit out the usual he supported dimwit party line, well guess what Einstein they all plead support before they are removed. The only time I've ever believed a coach is safe as my time following the AFL, is now under Gale and his side kick Peggy.
-
Back on topic.
The whole club is dishonest with itself. Hardwick accepts mediocrity. The board and key position in the footy department reeks of keeping positions for mates. The so called external club review is a PR exercise in scapgoating anyone except hardwick, gale, francis jackson, blair hartley and Dan Richardson, the very people who have made or are responsible for the terrible decisions.
-
Back on topic.
The whole club is dishonest with itself. Hardwick accepts mediocrity. The board and key position in the footy department reeks of keeping positions for mates. The so called external club review is a PR exercise in scapgoating anyone except hardwick, gale, francis jackson, blair hartley and Dan Richardson, the very people who have made or are responsible for the terrible decisions.
Correct
-
WP you may have overlooked my post on the last page.
Could you please inform us as to who proposed and seconded the motion that you voted against.
-
I work at EY. I can tell you we (the firm, not me) are currently doing work for RFC but I don't think it is football related.
Not surprising though that we do work for RFC given Rob Dalton, an RFC board member, is an EY partner.
-
who or wtf is EY ? serious question
-
I work at EY. I can tell you we (the firm, not me) are currently doing work for RFC but I don't think it is football related.
Not surprising though that we do work for RFC given Rob Dalton, an RFC board member, is an EY partner.
Well there you go (if the above is true). More jobs for the boys.
-
who or wtf is EY ? serious question
Accounting firm
-
ahh Earnest Young gotcha
-
I work at EY. I can tell you we (the firm, not me) are currently doing work for RFC but I don't think it is football related.
Not surprising though that we do work for RFC given Rob Dalton, an RFC board member, is an EY partner.
Well there you go (if the above is true). More jobs for the boys.
Makes Athens look clean
-
Makes Rio look respectable.
-
WP you may have overlooked my post on the last page.
Could you please inform us as to who proposed and seconded the motion that you voted against.
The motion was out forward by the board and communicated to the members prior to the AGM. IIRC the motion on the night was raised by March. Not sure who seconded it.
End of the day the board makes up 9.
That's 9 yes votes.
They had no control over the other 45k odd votes. The motion could have easily been defeated if people had taken the time to vote or more to the point shown some interestinwhat was going on
Not sure what post your reading but it's not mine
Who said members elected her back then?? I said some voted for her eg the board back then on the basis of being a peace keeper between Speed and Maurice.
I also whacked all of them when I said they must all go, except speed. Tell me how long had speed been on the board when this vote occurred?? Give him the top job like he should have got it back then.
One thing members voted was not to have Russo join the the old and stale board that mostly had been around since Wallace. Some handpicked by Gregory Miller.
How has that working for you now. :lol :lol :lol
before you spit out the usual he supported dimwit party line, well guess what Einstein they all plead support before they are removed. The only time I've ever believed a coach is safe as my time following the AFL, is now under Gale and his side kick Peggy.
As always you cannot discuss anything without throwing in some insults for good measure when people disagree or challenge you.
But seriously what relevance does Speeds tenure on the board have to do with anything? If He honestly believed he was the best person for the role why didnt he challenge? What stopped him?
And why should he be excused from your wanting them all gone? Why does he stay and not the others?
He is part of the board who agreed to the extension.so he is much to blame as any other board member.
-
Wasting valuable money that could be used to pay the dud out. :banghead :banghead
-
I also whacked all of them when I said they must all go, except speed. Tell me how long had speed been on the board when this vote occurred?? Give him the top job like he should have got it back then.
I really don't understand where you get this idea that Speed is a good choice as president.
If you bothered to do a search on his history you will find he has been a poor and divisive leader wherever he has gone, especially at the ICC.
Within his first term at Richmond he has been such a divisive force that the board has had to make a "neutral" the president. Speaks volumes.
Speed was appointed with Carl Walsh to fill two board vacancies in October 2011. Yes APPOINTED.
Garry Cameron and Don Lord resigned in October, two months before the AGM after serving for ten years on the board and were replaced by Speed and Walsh.
As there was such little time before the AGM there were no other candidates and they (Speed and Walsh) were deemed to have been ELECTED unopposed.
I think Walsh resigned in 2015 and John O'Rourke was Appointed to replace him.
In 2011 I was opposed to the changes and gave a proxy to WP to vote against (since I did not trust the chair or Stahl to lodge my vote correctly).
I also received a message from another OER poster that they had done the same.
In emails to the administrator of another site, she told me she and her husband had both voted against by proxy.
On reading on here that there were only a very few proxies cast against the motion I contacted the admin and suggested that the counting was dodgy.
She contacted Michael Stahl (COO and returning officer) and he replied to her as follows:
There were 73 proxies received, 69 in favour and 4 against the proposed changes.
At the AGM, the motion to change the Constitution was proposed by Charles Macek and seconded by Garry Cameron.
At the AGM there were 117 members present and 3 of those voted against the proposed changes.
Accordingly the proposed changes to the Constitution were passed.
Now according to that I personally know all 4 who voted against. Small, small, small world.
There were 117 members present. WP, Mightytoges and Jackstar have said they were the 3 votes against. Even smaller world.
The motion was moved by Macek and Cameron.
To go back to another thread
Just read the replies to my post.
Funny if not ironic.
A thread about changes to the Board.
I was one of the few who voted against the changes to the constitution that allows the board to appoint a third of directors.
The vote against the changes was SEVEN against of whom I personally know of four, WP and myself included.
So my question to Harry, yandb, Diocletian and Dooks - which way did you vote on the constitutional changes?
If you did not vote against them then you have at the least agreed with and condoned the changes the board made to limit the power of members to select the board.
So again to all those who now include the posters on this thread critical of WP. Which way did you vote?
-
Think you will find dan just runs with the first idea that pops into his head as if it is a well researched, though out and informed
-
From my recollection there were two factions within the board with 4 votes each ,President Peggy was appointed as a circuit breaker / compromise brokered by Gary March as acceptable to both side. Our financial and operational side of the club is solid, so I'm not sure why the focus on the board.
I agree the real issue is Richmond culture, recruiting seconds players and soft outside players whilst keeping list cloggers. We need to go back to Greme Richmonds approach without the self destructive traits.
Every one take a deep breath and hope Richmond make decisions for the long term and not the short term to appease the noise.
-
It's only solid because they stole everyone's membership moneys
Whoopee Doo.
-
WP you may have overlooked my post on the last page.
Could you please inform us as to who proposed and seconded the motion that you voted against.
The motion was out forward by the board and communicated to the members prior to the AGM. IIRC the motion on the night was raised by March. Not sure who seconded it.
End of the day the board makes up 9.
That's 9 yes votes.
They had no control over the other 45k odd votes. The motion could have easily been defeated if people had taken the time to vote or more to the point shown some interestinwhat was going on
Not sure what post your reading but it's not mine
Who said members elected her back then?? I said some voted for her eg the board back then on the basis of being a peace keeper between Speed and Maurice.
I also whacked all of them when I said they must all go, except speed. Tell me how long had speed been on the board when this vote occurred?? Give him the top job like he should have got it back then.
One thing members voted was not to have Russo join the the old and stale board that mostly had been around since Wallace. Some handpicked by Gregory Miller.
How has that working for you now. :lol :lol :lol
before you spit out the usual he supported dimwit party line, well guess what Einstein they all plead support before they are removed. The only time I've ever believed a coach is safe as my time following the AFL, is now under Gale and his side kick Peggy.
As always you cannot discuss anything without throwing in some insults for good measure when people disagree or challenge you.
But seriously what relevance does Speeds tenure on the board have to do with anything? If He honestly believed he was the best person for the role why didnt he challenge? What stopped him?
And why should he be excused from your wanting them all gone? Why does he stay and not the others?
He is part of the board who agreed to the extension.so he is much to blame as any other board member.
exactly who stopped him? I wonder.
so you voted against russo joining the board so my question was how is that working for you? stop deflecting the question and answer it.
-
so you voted against russo joining the board so my question was how is that working for you? stop deflecting the question and answer it.
Yep i did and i fine with it, works fine for me
Glad he isn't on the board. He offered nothing of substance at the time and therefore didnt get my vote.
So ive answered it
And perhaps in the future you can actually do what you demand of others and that's answer questions when you're asked rather than deflecting and potting people
-
Did he want to pee off Dimma?
Sounds substances like to me
-
Did he want to pee off Dimma?
Sounds substances like to me
Maybe he does now but at the time said he'd keep him...... :shh
-
True or False ?
Richmond Club director Rod Dalton, is a senior partner at Ernst & Young.
-
It's like the bush administration.
-
I hope we get mates rates!
-
Another joke to throw into the tiger repertoire
-
Hackson thinks we should draft Ernst but Hartley's right into Young..... :shh
-
Hackson thinks we should draft Ernst but Hartley's right into Young..... :shh
No more port players please.....
-
We actually were into Young from Port last year.....no joke....
-
True or False ?
Richmond Club director Rod Dalton, is a senior partner at Ernst & Young.
True. But Dalton is one of a number of Board members. PricewaterhouseCoopers are the club's auditors so its not unusual for consulting work to be awarded to one of the other large professional services firms. I looked earlier, this job is only one of two that EY has done for RFC since 2014. Not that significant.
-
Perhaps not it total but the most important to date...we hope.
-
True or False ?
Richmond Club director Rod Dalton, is a senior partner at Ernst & Young.
True. But Dalton is one of a number of Board members. PricewaterhouseCoopers are the club's auditors so its not unusual for consulting work to be awarded to one of the other large professional services firms. I looked earlier, this job is only one of two that EY has done for RFC since 2014. Not that significant.
Can you really see EY saying "hey Rob you and your board buddies completely stuffed up". Claytons review from which Rob will get his commission.
-
It's an all male review
-
And at the very least, it's a shady, unprofessional look, one that the club doesn't need right now...oh...wait.
-
True or False ?
Richmond Club director Rod Dalton, is a senior partner at Ernst & Young.
True. But Dalton is one of a number of Board members. PricewaterhouseCoopers are the club's auditors so its not unusual for consulting work to be awarded to one of the other large professional services firms. I looked earlier, this job is only one of two that EY has done for RFC since 2014. Not that significant.
Can you really see EY saying "hey Rob you and your board buddies completely stuffed up". Claytons review from which Rob will get his commission.
You do understand how big EY is? And that it is broken up in the many different business units? And that although he is a Partner his area of discipline isn't the area that would be doing the consulting / review?
-
True or False ?
Richmond Club director Rod Dalton, is a senior partner at Ernst & Young.
True. But Dalton is one of a number of Board members. PricewaterhouseCoopers are the club's auditors so its not unusual for consulting work to be awarded to one of the other large professional services firms. I looked earlier, this job is only one of two that EY has done for RFC since 2014. Not that significant.
Can you really see EY saying "hey Rob you and your board buddies completely stuffed up". Claytons review from which Rob will get his commission.
You do understand how big EY is? And that it is broken up in the many different business units? And that although he is a Partner his area of discipline isn't the area that would be doing the consulting / review?
For that reason alone, they should be professional enough to see the conflict of interest and step aside.
Says more about them than the drivel you posted about their credentials
-
True or False ?
Richmond Club director Rod Dalton, is a senior partner at Ernst & Young.
True. But Dalton is one of a number of Board members. PricewaterhouseCoopers are the club's auditors so its not unusual for consulting work to be awarded to one of the other large professional services firms. I looked earlier, this job is only one of two that EY has done for RFC since 2014. Not that significant.
Can you really see EY saying "hey Rob you and your board buddies completely stuffed up". Claytons review from which Rob will get his commission.
You do understand how big EY is? And that it is broken up in the many different business units? And that although he is a Partner his area of discipline isn't the area that would be doing the consulting / review?
Last time I checked EY dont have a football business unit. As I said a Claytons review.
-
True or False ?
Richmond Club director Rod Dalton, is a senior partner at Ernst & Young.
True. But Dalton is one of a number of Board members. PricewaterhouseCoopers are the club's auditors so its not unusual for consulting work to be awarded to one of the other large professional services firms. I looked earlier, this job is only one of two that EY has done for RFC since 2014. Not that significant.
Can you really see EY saying "hey Rob you and your board buddies completely stuffed up". Claytons review from which Rob will get his commission.
You do understand how big EY is? And that it is broken up in the many different business units? And that although he is a Partner his area of discipline isn't the area that would be doing the consulting / review?
For that reason alone, they should be professional enough to see the conflict of interest and step aside.
Says more about them than the drivel you posted about their credentials
:clapping
-
True or False ?
Richmond Club director Rod Dalton, is a senior partner at Ernst & Young.
True. But Dalton is one of a number of Board members. PricewaterhouseCoopers are the club's auditors so its not unusual for consulting work to be awarded to one of the other large professional services firms. I looked earlier, this job is only one of two that EY has done for RFC since 2014. Not that significant.
Can you really see EY saying "hey Rob you and your board buddies completely stuffed up". Claytons review from which Rob will get his commission.
You do understand how big EY is? And that it is broken up in the many different business units? And that although he is a Partner his area of discipline isn't the area that would be doing the consulting / review?
Last time I checked EY dont have a football business unit. As I said a Claytons review.
As I mentioned in my last post, EY has an engagement with RFC but, based on what I can see in the system, it does not appear to be football related.
Also, as WP mentioned, the partner running the active engagement is not Dalton. In fact, the service line doing the work is not even Dalton's service line. EY Partners are remunerated on a service line (not geographical) basis so Dalton has nothing to gain personally from EY doing this work (whatever it might relate to).
-
We actually were into Young from Port last year.....no joke....
Yep and I wanted him. Now he's having a good year. Will probably go back to being a dud though
-
True or False ?
Richmond Club director Rod Dalton, is a senior partner at Ernst & Young.
True. But Dalton is one of a number of Board members. PricewaterhouseCoopers are the club's auditors so its not unusual for consulting work to be awarded to one of the other large professional services firms. I looked earlier, this job is only one of two that EY has done for RFC since 2014. Not that significant.
Can you really see EY saying "hey Rob you and your board buddies completely stuffed up". Claytons review from which Rob will get his commission.
You do understand how big EY is? And that it is broken up in the many different business units? And that although he is a Partner his area of discipline isn't the area that would be doing the consulting / review?
Last time I checked EY dont have a football business unit. As I said a Claytons review.
As I mentioned in my last post, EY has an engagement with RFC but, based on what I can see in the system, it does not appear to be football related.
Also, as WP mentioned, the partner running the active engagement is not Dalton. In fact, the service line doing the work is not even Dalton's service line. EY Partners are remunerated on a service line (not geographical) basis so Dalton has nothing to gain personally from EY doing this work (whatever it might relate to).
The superficial connection between EY and a board member is what most of us would see. If it needs to be explained, it's not acceptable.
Board members should get that.
-
The Tigers’ decision to engage consultancy firm Ernst & Young to conduct a review of the football department also prompted the group to rally.
Questions are being asked about the firm's suitability to contribute to a football department review when the club's 2016 finances and off-field position are in good order.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-04/property-developer-joe-russo-pulls-out-of-richmond-board-challenge
-
Yeah that's what I thought....won't fix our football problems....
But by reviewing business operations they assess the processes in place for things like internal reviews and how the club goes about them....
So it could have benefits
Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board...... :whistle
That was and remains a disgrace.
It's a source of laughter nearly as rich as Dimmer's dissections.
-
And at the very least, it's a shady, unprofessional look, one that the club doesn't need right now...oh...wait.
Hahahaha no biggy, no conflict True or False ?
Richmond Club director Rod Dalton, is a senior partner at Ernst & Young.
True. But Dalton is one of a number of Board members. PricewaterhouseCoopers are the club's auditors so its not unusual for consulting work to be awarded to one of the other large professional services firms. I looked earlier, this job is only one of two that EY has done for RFC since 2014. Not that significant.
Can you really see EY saying "hey Rob you and your board buddies completely stuffed up". Claytons review from which Rob will get his commission.
You do understand how big EY is? And that it is broken up in the many different business units? And that although he is a Partner his area of discipline isn't the area that would be doing the consulting / review?
For that reason alone, they should be professional enough to see the conflict of interest and step aside.
Says more about them than the drivel you posted about their credentials
:clapping
:thumbsup