One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Jackstar on August 31, 2004, 11:44:23 AM
-
The mail is that now the season is finished the "trouble makers" will raise there head again. You might find the "alternative ticket saga" will push things very shortly. Why cant we be in the news for good things instead of crap.
Stay tuned.!
-
Schwab was on MMM on Saturday after the game. I have little idea what he said because I was too busy going ballistic to hear anything much.
But I think he was putting forward where things need to change at the Club. :o No kidding. Only a genius could have worked that out. ::)
From what we’ve read, seems like Casey and the Board are well under way to doing all of these things.
What I want to know is what could Schwab possibly do better than anyone else or better than those who are there already? If anyone can explain that to me I’d be grateful. Because this just seems like a complete waste of people’s time and energy, by a few nuff nuffs who basically have little or no idea. And even worse than that, they aren’t even living in the real world. :banghead :banghead
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like they’re stuck in a time warp or something and are just incapable of dealing with the reality of the situation?
They can uncover, reveal or bring forward whatever they like, they can’t lead this or any other Club and bring success to it. Not from anything I’ve seen from them they can’t.
I know I go on about this, but I will continue to go on about it until there’s no need to. :P
-
Why doesn't this surprise me?
Last week at the THC luncheon, Schwab was there (he always goes so I can't give him heaps about that) working the room - talking mainly to former players. Newsflash for you Mickey Nuff Nuff - it aint the former players you need to be speaking too it is people like me. :banghead Peter Welsh was there too and what a joke that is. I have been to every THC luncheons and Welsh has never been to one but suddenly turns up and works the room too - what type of people do you think you are dealing with? Fools like yourselves?
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like they’re stuck in a time warp or something and are just incapable of dealing with the reality of the situation?
It seems to me TS that Schwab believes he has some right to be at Richmond (maybe because of his late father I don't know). He did nothing while he was there - his record tells us that. He and his croonies are big on telling us what is wrong but they give very little substance to their arguement because they haven't given one plausible solution to our woes. In actual fact they have said they would go back to those dim dark years of just cutting spending (ala the late 1980's and ealry 1990's) but with no apparent plans to raise more revenues.
I know I go on about this, but I will continue to go on about it until there’s no need to. :P
I go on about it too TS - these nuff nuffs are a joke and a disgrace and they make my blood boil. They claim to care about the Club but continue to disstablise it for reasons that escape me but quite obviously boost their over inflated egos.
-
He did nothing while he was there - his record tells us that. He and his croonies are big on telling us what is wrong but they give very little substance to their arguement because they haven't given one plausible solution to our woes. In actual fact they have said they would go back to those dim dark years of just cutting spending (ala the late 1980's and ealry 1990's) but with no apparent plans to raise more revenues.
That’s my main concern with this group WP. And it’s a worry that you and I and others can see that, but they don’t seem to be able to or want to.
That they actually think they have something more to contribute to the Club, with their outmoded methods, when they couldn’t make an impact before, just shows the lack of awareness and nous they really have. None.
-
It wouldn't be the case that Schwab and Co know if they waited to the AGM/election they would get slaughtered on proxies unless there's an extraordinary high turnout in the voting by members. Sounds like political manoeuvring to me and nothing else. So much for putting the best interests of the Club first ::). Once again their timing is impeccable - trade/draft season when you're trying to attract players.
-
Once again their timing is impeccable - trade/draft season when you're trying to attract players.
Why would we want to attract players after the stellar season we have had ::)
So much for putting the best interests of the Club first ::).
Why would they want to do that? They only took a step back with the coaching appointment becase they knew the consequences if we lost Wallace - it is a pity they cannot see the consequences of what their rumblings do. They are a disgrace
-
Ditto my previous rantings >:(
-
Nothing wrong with Schwab; being a richmond supporter and given his bloodlines and career; why not. Casey needs to know he has opposition. We should go totally democratic and have full elections every three years.
However when I vote, i'll judge them on their merits and presentation.
-
We should go totally democratic and have full elections every three years.
We are democratic DDT - ever year postions become available - whether we have an election depends on the number of nominations. We had an election last year for the first time in ages because there were 8 or 9 nominees.
-
From article Tiger cull posted by FF on the "players cut" thread. I've split the topics up [ed. one-eyed].
By Mark Robinson
Herald-Sun
September 1, 2004
The clean-out, under new coach Terry Wallace, came on the same day president Clinton Casey and wannabe president Brendan Schwab drew swords over control of Punt Rd.
Schwab told the Herald Sun last night he would this week ask Casey to resign and if Casey didn't he'd likely call for an early election.
Casey, however, was adamant he would not step aside and labelled Schwab "untrustworthy" for hinting at a pre-December election that had been agreed to.
The off-field drama began yesterday when Casey and Schwab stood firm over their leadership intentions.
The two had agreed, among other things, that there be negotiations over a transition of power and, if that could not be agreed, then an election - effectively Casey v Schwab - would be held in December.
Schwab confirmed yesterday he would approach Casey this week and ask for his resignation.
"That's the critical step in the negotiations and that's Clinton Casey to make a decision about his future," he said.
Asked last night if he would resign, Casey said: "No".
Schwab said an election earlier than December was now an option.
"Clinton needs to understand that the people of Richmond gave him a five-year opportunity to build Richmond and the culmination of that five-year period has been the worst on-field and off-field performance in the history of the club," he said.
"And if he says, 'No, I'm not stepping down', then we will increase our group of seven to nine and will then conduct a full board election.
"The timing of that is something we would review but in the absence of full disclosure of the financials, then clearly we would have to consider bringing the election forward."
Casey's standing at the club and in the eyes of supporters has improved in recent weeks.
The appointment of Wallace, the arrival of new chief executive Steven Wright, new football and recruiting departments, on top of yesterday's player departures, have given Casey and the Tigers board renewed enthusiasm.
Casey said last night he hadn't agreed to step aside to allow a smooth transition.
"What we agreed to was if there was a better president put forward, and it was agreed that was the case, then I would step aside," Casey said. "There's not."
Schwab's group is expected to be allowed to view the Tigers' financial books next week.
"That's so important," Schwab said. "If we think immediate medicine needs to be administered, in the best interests of the club we would need to act sooner."
-
"Clinton needs to understand that the people of Richmond gave him a five-year opportunity to build Richmond and the culmination of that five-year period has been the worst on-field and off-field performance in the history of the club," he said.
Who else was there for 4 of those 5 years Brendan plus the year before that! ::). Do you think we're that stupid to forget that after six months >:(.
Schwab said. "If we think immediate medicine needs to be administered, in the best interests of the club we would need to act sooner."
The timing of your past actions make you a poor judge of acting in the best interests of the RFC. Firstly you started your challenge while we trying to appointment Wallace potentially putting that at risk and now to re-start it as we head into the trade period putting at risk getting a decent out-of-contract player.
-
I will say this, people( supporters) have very short memories.
When reading all the crap posted on forums, people think that Schwab is a messiah or something.
His brother basically ruined the club, just ask KB and former players who played during the late 80,s, early 90,s
This clown will bring the club to its knees over the next few weeks.
SCHWAB IS NOT THE ANSWER AND EITHER IS HIS TICKET !
Forget about the joy of having a good coach for the first time in 10 years and delight in getting the best young players in the land, it all will come to an end very soon.
The supporters have had enough hardship.they dont need anymore !
-
Fair dinkum Brendan Schwab you are a joke and a disgrace. It is a pity you don't read this forum - then again it is probably a good thing for your over inflated ego. Idiot.
Schwab confirmed yesterday he would approach Casey this week and ask for his resignation.
"That's the critical step in the negotiations and that's Clinton Casey to make a decision about his future," he said.
Clinton has to make a decision about his future? He has you twit (read below) - but because it aint what you want you think he hasn't made a decision
Asked last night if he would resign, Casey said: "No".
Seems like a decison to me Brendan - do you follow?
"Clinton needs to understand that the people of Richmond gave him a five-year opportunity to build Richmond and the culmination of that five-year period has been the worst on-field and off-field performance in the history of the club," he said.
He is at it again. It is now Clinton Casey's fault we won the wooden spoon - argh yeah that's right Clinton and Clinton alone gave Danny the contract extension and then agreed to remove "that clause". Newsflash Brendan (and Peter Welsh too) you were part of the board that agreed to that decison and you did agree didn't you? Take some bloody responsibility will you.
Casey said last night he hadn't agreed to step aside to allow a smooth transition.
"What we agreed to was if there was a better president put forward, and it was agreed that was the case, then I would step aside," Casey said. "There's not."
Spot on Clinton - there isn't though Brendan would want us to believe that his the man for the job - he isn't now or in the future.
"That's so important," Schwab said. "If we think immediate medicine needs to be administered, in the best interests of the club we would need to act sooner."
Immediate medicine - what is that Brendan - just reinforcing what's already been done. Reducing spending?
I have said it before and I'll say it again - there is absolutely no way I would vote Brendan Schwab and his ticket. Is it personal? - You bet it is.
-
I will say this, people( supporters) have very short memories.
When reading all the crap posted on forums, people think that Schwab is a messiah or something.
How true Jackstar. It is improtant for people to know he aint no messiah.
His brother basically ruined the club, just ask KB and former players who played during the late 80,s, early 90,s
This clown will bring the club to its knees over the next few weeks.
Please don't get me started on the brother >:(
SCHWAB IS NOT THE ANSWER AND EITHER IS HIS TICKET !
Said it in a nutshell Jack
-
I will say this, people( supporters) have very short memories.
When reading all the crap posted on forums, people think that Schwab is a messiah or something.
How true Jackstar. It is improtant for people to know he aint know messiah.
His brother basically ruined the club, just ask KB and former players who played during the late 80,s, early 90,s
This clown will bring the club to its knees over the next few weeks.
Please don't get me started on the brother >:(
SCHWAB IS NOT THE ANSWER AND EITHER IS HIS TICKET !
Said it in a nutshell Jack
But the question is: Will he win if he forces an EGM?
-
But the question is: Will he win if he forces an EGM?
Surely he can’t Rodgerramjet. I hope members and supporters can see that he and his group would just be taking us backwards. Let’s be democratic and have an election, but why go backwards with these people who have been there before? It just doesn’t make sense.
We might as well concede that our Club would be well and truly stuffed if he gets in. :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead
As I’ve stated before, the fact that this group elected Schwab as their front man ::) says it all. And points to how light weight, short-sighted and backwards they really are.
They are a never will be, never was, bunch of time wasting, self-interested non event, never gonna happens. :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead
-
He wont get in.
They will get votes from another website and thats about it.
There "ring around " to gain support has fallen short of the mark !
-
He wont get in.
They will get votes from another website and thats about it.
There "ring around " to gain support has fallen short of the mark !
I hope you're right Jackee - Schwab and his cronies would set us back 20 years
-
They will get votes from another website and thats about it.
I should do my own dirty work I guess, but on what basis would members vote for them? :-\
Have I missed something? ???
-
Thats easy, Mental health ;) :rollin
-
But the question is: Will he win if he forces an EGM?
I could be misunderstanding this but I thought an EGM will only put forward a no-confidence motion in the current board and a resolution to hold the election with all board positions open sooner rather than just before the agreed AGM in december. Not the actual election itself. You then have an interim board will little power between the EGM and the election.
In any case I can't see Schwab having a chance unless he can somehow remove Casey and the entire current board at an EGM or by Casey standing down himself. Either seems very unlikely. If Casey by nature of being President is Chairman of any meeting then all vacant proxies (people who don't bother to vote or don't delegate another person as a proxy) automatically support the Chairman's stance. You would need a huge voting turnout (unlike last time) and a large anti-Casey vote to unseat him. That's my understanding reading the articles. Those who only go by actual votes (more inclined to want change) and forget to include proxies will probably claim if Casey survives that it's rigged.
-
Surely that other site is a thorn in the clubs side.
From an RFC administrative point of view that joint would mean nothing but
misdirected megolomania and all things negative.
OER is,IMO,the Premier Richmond site as it's members are of an intellect and maturity that allows
constructive arguments as well as mindless criticism(that would be me :santa)
-
members are of an intellect and maturity that allows
constructive arguments as well as mindless criticism(that would be me :santa)
:bow :bow As my Mother always says "know your place, know your purpose". Well done Oxman :thumbsup :rollin
-
He wont get in.
They will get votes from another website and thats about it.
There "ring around " to gain support has fallen short of the mark !
Of course that other site would support this team built of fluff, bluff and lies. It represents the same qualities. :scream
-
Let's just say this other site is not adding to any credibility this other ticket may have - or may not.
I can't stand Casey but i'm almost tempted to vote for him now based on all the crap. Making my head spin them dissecting every word someone makes and turning it into a bloody thesis.
I hope Casey keeps the books from them :rollin
Is he obliged to anyway?
-
Thats an interesting point actually, after all, they are only supporters, its not if they hold any position of authority. ;)
Its amazing how many of them say the Schwab bleeds yellow and Black, well dont we all, whats gives Mickey Mouse the right to cause all this trouble when he was already on the board. He and Woosha Welsh didnt get there own way so took ""there bat and ball "" and went home. :'(
If they had the RFC at heart, they would of stayed on an had objective cristism of the issues at hand, otherwise ,why were they on the board in the first place, to big note ?
-
All Tiger supporters that use the net need to realise (not saying anyone here doesn't already realise this) we are a minority and a small one at that when you compare us to the total of 27,500 RFC members. It'll be the "mums and dads" members that will decide Casey's/Schwab's fates.
-
a very small minority actually.when you consider how many people are on line at all the sites combined and who are actual members, you might find its less than 1% of the total members
-
a very small minority actually.when you consider how many people are on line at all the sites combined and who are actual members, you might find its less than 1% of the total members
Well, as part of that 1%, I won’t be voting for the alternative ticket, in any way shape or form.
To me, it’s like us de-listing Marsh, Fletcher, Houlihan and others and then giving them another contract come draft time. :banghead :banghead
That would just be stupid, wouldn’t it, and this is no different.
-
Woman lawyer on Tiger ticket
By Caroline Wilson
realfooty.theage.com.au
September 7, 2004
Brendan Schwab's push to unseat Clinton Casey as president of Richmond has received a boost in the form of 31-year-old lawyer Sharon Hall, who, if successful, would become the first woman board member in the club's history.
And the Schwab challenge looks certain to further expand again by one tomorrow to give his ticket the required nine members to overthrow Casey, as the two camps head towards a bruising election battle.
Hall, who specialises in sporting, corporate and litigation law, is in partnership with Kevin Sheedy's long-time lawyer Brian Ward. Among her more celebrated cases was the Pakistan cricket inquiry into Shane Warne and Mark Waugh over the betting scandal.
A former Victorian representative softballer who was recruited to the challengers' ticket by Schwab and his alternative treasurer and liquidation expert Michael Humphris, she told The Age: "With the best will in the world, the current administration cannot say that the club is at the front of the queue.
"In my view, it's time for an amicable handing over of the baton to another group to try to achieve that. It's in the best interests of the club.
"If people find it interesting that I'm also female, then that's good. I believe I have something different to offer."
Hall is a coup for Schwab, given Casey's six-month search for a woman director. Among the high-profile Tiger supporters he has unsuccessfully approached is the club's No. 1 ticket-holder Diana Jones, wife of the Melbourne Cricket Club chairman David Jones.
The Casey board boasts eight members but would require nine to form a new board following the spill, which is still expected to take place in the second week of December, though the board believes the full election should take place at the annual meeting that month, saving the club the $60,000 it would cost for an extraordinary general meeting.
Having lost former premiership players Tony Jewell and Peter Welsh from the board at the start of the year, Richmond is the only Victorian AFL club without a former player as a director.
Director of football Greg Miller has offered to fill the breach for Casey and remains a staunch Casey supporter.
Schwab and his group has lost patience with Casey, believing the beleaguered president has failed to honour the compromise reached in order to allow the club to secure a new coach.
Not only has Casey refused to unconditionally make the Richmond books available to Humphris, he has cancelled at least two meetings with the challengers.
With the Richmond board meeting tonight for the last time before Casey heads overseas on Thursday for a month, Schwab and his ticket now regard a total spill as the inevitable conclusion to the club's political, financial and football crisis, which has led to three board members resigning this year, the sacking of CEO Ian Campbell, a projected loss of $2.4 million and a wooden spoon.
Casey is believed to have made the books available only if the challengers sign a confidentiality agreement. Schwab was still pushing for a meeting with Casey before tonight's board meeting.
Casey will also address tomorrow night's best and fairest count for the Jack Dyer Medal, to be attended by former coach Danny Frawley. Although Frawley had offered to stand aside for incoming coach Terry Wallace, Miller is believed to have insisted that Frawley attend.
A full election appears certain following the breakdown in negotiations between the opposing camps, with the only question being whether it will be held in December at the annual meeting - as agreed to during the "ceasefire" - or earlier.
The board believes Schwab's request for an "smooth transition" is actually a request for a complete surrender.
Schwab said last night that the refusal to hand over the financial information unless there was a signed confidentiality agreement was "ridiculous."
He said the financial position of the club was "the issue at the heart of any election for a new board".
But a board source last night countered that Schwab was interested in the financial details for "political reasons," while the club had been upfront in its detailing the club's financial position throughout the year.
- with Jake Niall
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/09/06/1094322716333.html
-
2004 has been one of the Club's low ebbs but it's hardly a "crisis". The past month would have to be one of the most controlled transitions RFC has ever witnessed. Hardly a sign of a Club in crisis! Interesting that Caro forgot to mention the new CEO, new coach in Wallace + new footy department, a business plan approved by he AFL and top draft picks to come under Miller's and Wallace's stewardship. One of the reasons Wallace chose us was because we were stable unlike his old Club which "is" in crisis. We can all twist the situation the Club is in to make it sound better or worse than it is.
It's not a case of "handing over the baton" to another group. It's more like handing it back to the past with Schwab and Welsh leading this other group. Credit to Sharon for deciding to run for the board but it's the head of this alternative ticket that stinks not it's tail.
The last half of Caro's article about the pettiness over the books just shows we're already in election mode with both sides trying to score a political advantage.
the financial position of the club was "the issue at the heart of any election for a new board".
Yeah sure! That's why Daphne stepped down with $ to spare and with the Club having 29,000 members Brendan ::). Remember you were on the board back then as well.
No doubt the financial health of the Club is very important but on-field performance is what football club boards live and die by (Don Scott isn't challenging at the Hawks because of their financial situation). And like Clinton you Brendan and Welsh as former board members agreed to ridiculous decisions for 5 years that kept us as the rabble footy side we have been for the past 20.
The main issue IMHO is who'll be the best nine people to run the Club into 2005 and beyond in all areas. Sadly due to their leaders' past efforts neither side stacks up IMO.
-
Sharon Hall, softballer.
We have had ""22 soft ballers "" run around all year.
Now we might get one on the board.
Tigers need more grunt not soft balls ::)
-
Woman lawyer on Tiger ticket
By Caroline Wilson
realfooty.theage.com.au
September 7, 2004
Wonderful to see Caro back from Greece writing about the Tigers - and catching up with her mate ::) ::) :help
-
Beware of woman lawyer who swings a bat lol
Hang on, she could be handy.
Still, i hate all this ticket stuff. Why should i vote for a ticket in which i can't stand half of the contenders - on both sides.
If these people want to get in at the club, why can't they just stand as Independents - in fact, why can't all of them.
It just says to me there's one group within the club fighting against each other - and who needs that?
If you've got something to offer the club, nominate, but why factions?
-
We really are clutching at straws with this article, trying to make it sound like things are really up and moving with this ticket. But all it really serves to do is strengthen the view that Schwab and co are as lightweight as some of us think they are and have no idea when it comes to playing the political game.
They really are out of their League. Maybe they should try the little league.
What I want to know is, how does having a female Board member enhance this ticket’s position any more than if it was a credible male? As long as it is someone who can do the job, what difference does it effectively make?
I can’t take any of these people seriously, because if any of them had the best interests of the Club at heart then they would nominate and get voted in, like most people do at other Clubs.
That they could actually believe they are doing the right thing by the Club is absolutely staggering. They tell the Club that it is not being run properly and then try to overthrow the current Board, thereby making the Club look like a rabble. So who is the real rabble here?
The Club has had ample opportunity, over the last five years, to absolutely cave in. And I thought several times we were about to self-destruct, but it never happened.
The fact that factions seem to be appearing to unseat the current Board, heavily laden with those who have been there in the past, perhaps suggest that the non contributors and those who weren’t prepared to play the ‘team game’ are no longer there for a very good reason.
As shown by their methods, these people on rival tickets are divisive and simply in it for themselves and can only keep Richmond in its old ways. It has never been the way to go about things and still isn't.
-
I gree froars, you might get one or two that know what they are doing, the rest wont have a clue. Why cant we build a team of the best from everyone. Or would that be too much like team work and having a game plan :P
-
Schwab and his group has lost patience with Casey, believing the beleaguered president has failed to honour the compromise reached in order to allow the club to secure a new coach.
Blah blah.... I just wont to go on record as saying I have lost all patience with Schwab and his ticket >:(
Not only has Casey refused to unconditionally make the Richmond books available to Humphris, he has cancelled at least two meetings with the challengers.
:o Staggering....
Not only that Clinton has refused to offer them a cup a coffee at any upcoming meetings - anyone for tea ::)
With the Richmond board meeting tonight for the last time before Casey heads overseas on Thursday for a month, Schwab and his ticket now regard a total spill as the inevitable conclusion to the club's political, financial and football crisis, which has led to three board members resigning this year, the sacking of CEO Ian Campbell, a projected loss of $2.4 million and a wooden spoon.
Really is that what has happened in 2004- I didn't know that. Batton down the hatches ::)
The board believes Schwab's request for an "smooth transition" is actually a request for a complete surrender.
Really :o - would never have guessed - Caro this is some of your best work - pass the scones ;)
Schwab said last night that the refusal to hand over the financial information unless there was a signed confidentiality agreement was "ridiculous."
Why is it ridiculous? But then again Brendan knows a lot about the ridiculous ;D
He said the financial position of the club was "the issue at the heart of any election for a new board".
This is a stupid statement but then again - it shouldn't surprise. "Any election"??? How many is any? This election - yes but "any" - no
Schwab has made a few stupid statments over the last 6 months.
Anyone for a latte?
-
They really are out of their League. Maybe they should try the little league.
Batter up :lol
What I want to know is, how does having a female Board member enhance this ticket’s position any more than if it was a credible male? As long as it is someone who can do the job, what difference does it effectively make?
I've been thinking the same thing myself TS - any ticket should be made up of those with the best credentials to help the club - not tokens.
Still, i hate all this ticket stuff. Why should i vote for a ticket in which i can't stand half of the contenders - on both sides.
If these people want to get in at the club, why can't they just stand as Independents - in fact, why can't all of them.
It just says to me there's one group within the club fighting against each other - and who needs that?
If you've got something to offer the club, nominate, but why factions?
We live in a democracy so therefore, I believe that you should and would be allowed to vote the individuals you want to.
Remember the last Carlton election when they booted out big Jack? There were 2 tickets but people from form Jack's ticket (Kernahan and Williams) ended up on Collo's board. Same thing could happen with us and it would be up to those elected to work together.
-
We really are clutching at straws with this article, trying to make it sound like things are really up and moving with this ticket. But all it really serves to do is strengthen the view that Schwab and co are as lightweight as some of us think they are and have no idea when it comes to playing the political game.
They really are out of their League. Maybe they should try the little league.
What I want to know is, how does having a female Board member enhance this ticket’s position any more than if it was a credible male? As long as it is someone who can do the job, what difference does it effectively make?
I can’t take any of these people seriously, because if any of them had the best interests of the Club at heart then they would nominate and get voted in, like most people do at other Clubs.
That they could actually believe they are doing the right thing by the Club is absolutely staggering. They tell the Club that it is not being run properly and then try to overthrow the current Board, thereby making the Club look like a rabble. So who is the real rabble here?
The Club has had ample opportunity, over the last five years, to absolutely cave in. And I thought several times we were about to self-destruct, but it never happened.
The fact that factions seem to be appearing to unseat the current Board, heavily laden with those who have been there in the past, perhaps suggest that the non contributors and those who weren’t prepared to play the ‘team game’ are no longer there for a very good reason.
As shown by their methods, these people on rival tickets are divisive and simply in it for themselves and can only keep Richmond in its old ways. It has never been the way to go about things and still isn't.
TS you're right on 2 counts. Yes this article is clutching at straws and yes swab's ticket is made of little league stuff.
But so is Caseys. Anthony Mitten, WTF?
Swab is not the only one making the club look like a rabble. It already was and is. Finishing last, losing $2m and appointing a halfwit CEO without even interviewing him makes it a rabble. Swab is just making it look more like a rabble.
There are two parties here squabbling. The incumbents and the challengers. How you can be pi$$d off with just one of the sides is beyond me. They both suck. Just because Swab underwhelms you doesnt mean Casey should escape criticism for running the club into the ground and being a crap president.
-
Casey has my vote
Schwab can go and get @#$%^&
and then when Rex runs for presidency then
Casey can follow Schwab... until then leave the club alone! >:(
-
Casey has my vote
Schwab can go and get @#$%^&
and then when Rex runs for presidency then
Casey can follow Schwab... until then leave the club alone! >:(
you're dreaming about Rex.
and you were too quick to change your name from coach required. It will be pres required in 12 months.
-
I'm not sure how the elected terms will be sorted out given that all nine positions on the board are up for grabs all at once? I think your term lasts as long as whoever you took over from had left running but I'm not sure and I'm not sure how they'll work that out ???.
They were normally spread out so 3 different board positions came up for election each year with each successful candidate serving 3 year terms. So over a 3 year cycle all positions were elected upon or just reinstated if there were no other challengers.
In any case, whoever wins the election in December could claim they have a 3 year mandate from members :(.
-
the financial position of the club was "the issue at the heart of any election for a new board".
No doubt the financial health of the Club is very important but on-field performance is what football club boards live and die by
Spot on MT. Comments like this show just how out of touch with members and supporters Schwab and his mates really are and the longer this goes on the less convinced about them I become.
We all want our own Club to be successful, but when supporters get upset, it’s generally because of how the team is going, not how the bank balance looks. Whether we have millions in the bank or $1.20 makes not a lot of difference to most supporters, as long as we have a Club to support. And I don’t remember reading any posts on OER, on a Monday, after a game, where supporters vented their frustration that our bank balance was cactus and totally ignored whether we had won or lost that weekend.
Schwab has gone on about the financial crisis at RFC. But the AFL would be nuts if they let a Club like Richmond disappear, especially when they offer assistance to other Clubs with a smaller supporter base. It wouldn’t make sense if they let that happen. Obviously every Club is monitored to ensure things are running as they should and if the AFL don’t have an issue with how things are being run then I’m not sure what guru Schwab has to complain about.
Is it any wonder RFC has gone nowhere over the past few decades when it’s people like this who have been on the Board and all they have ever been concerned about is keeping the finances in check. Just in case any one needs reminding, this is a footy club, not a financial institution. We want success on the field, first, second, third and last.
Any administration that knows what a footy club is all about can quickly get its act together.
In the past, RFC has focused most of its energies on balancing the books, at the expense of the football department. The consistent lack of success that approach brought has meant constant upheaval and turmoil.
For the first time in a long while, we now seem to be in a reasonable position to start to put together a competitive team out on the ground.
From what they have consistently shown throughout this campaign, Schwab and co couldn’t lead that. They would just give us more of what we’ve had.
-
There are two parties here squabbling. The incumbents and the challengers. How you can be pi$$d off with just one of the sides is beyond me. They both suck. Just because Swab underwhelms you doesnt mean Casey should escape criticism for running the club into the ground and being a crap president.
And that is the biggest problem 1980 - there are only 2 parties and from the 2 we have, each of us has to make a choice. Do we go with what we have or go with those who have been part of the decision making process, walked away and now want to come back.
Personally I ticked off with Casey and his board because we are going to lose $2 million this year - which means we will be in debt (not by $ 2m but in debt none the less) for the first time in a number of years. However, Casey and his board have not walked away - they have put together a business plan (that has the backing of the AFL) that will claw us out of this mess we are in. One of the most pleasing part of this plan for my view point is finally thay are not going to rely on the teams on field performance to try and make a profit. For far to long gate receipts and the hope the team is going to perfrom has dominated the Clubs thinking. Whether, people want to acknowledge it or not Brendan Schwab and Peter Welsh were members of the boards that used this archaic thinking. And it has cost us.
Then we have Schwab who continues to tell us nothing new but what we already know. He tells us the figures are bad - we know it. He has told us that "we will need strong medicine" but hasn't explained what the storng medicine is going to be except hinting that it may involve cost cutting. the cost cutting has already started. So it appears he constantly tells us what we arleady know. The Schwab ticket has offered nothing in terms of policy or strategies all they do is offer up the same old same old - nothing new. Oops I tell a lie - they offer us a female on their ticket as if to say here's a good reason to vote for us. What a surprise it was that one of the first articles from Caro on her return from Greece was the latest instalment in the "Schwab take-over". As I said nothing new just the same old same old.
So we have 2 choices.
BG25, said it perfectly the other day - Casey's money and ego wont let the Tigers fail. Can Schwab offer us the same guarantees - the answer is NO and as a result with the 2 choices available Casey gets my vote.
-
Just because Swab underwhelms you doesnt mean Casey should escape criticism for running the club into the ground and being a crap president.
I don’t have any angst towards Casey. Mainly because, even if he has caused or helped cause the mess we’re in, for the first time we actually need to get into action and do something about it.
It also shows that he has actually gone out to make things happen. With all the conservatism of previous administrations at RFC, nothing has ever been in such a state that drastic changes have been seen as urgent or necessary. Now, because everything seems in such an uproar, something needs to happen. I know that’s probably an unusual way to look at things, but it’s better than neither going backwards nor forwards, year after year.
And I would rather someone who takes some action to change things, rather than sit back and do nothing, even if things don’t go as you would like. If they know what they are doing they can straighten things up. But unless we take some risks then we’ll just stay where we are. And I don’t want to go back to those conservative days, which Schwab would surely bring.
Nothing has been proven that anything underhanded has happened with our finances. So I can only look at what has happened and is happening with the current administration and compare it to what Schwab offers, which isn’t much, if anything.
-
Nothing has been proven that anything underhanded has happened with our finances. So I can only look at what has happened and is happening with the current administration and compare it to what Schwab offers, which isn’t much, if anything.
Exactly TS - what do or have they offered? Nothing, nada, nil, zippo, zilch. I have said it before Schwab is big on telling us what is wrong but not big on presenting solutions
-
There are two parties here squabbling. The incumbents and the challengers. How you can be pi$$d off with just one of the sides is beyond me. They both suck. Just because Swab underwhelms you doesnt mean Casey should escape criticism for running the club into the ground and being a crap president.
And that is the biggest problem 1980 - there are only 2 parties and from the 2 we have, each of us has to make a choice. Do we go with what we have or go with those who have been part of the decision making process, walked away and now want to come back.
Personally I ticked off with Casey and his board because we are going to lose $2 million this year - which means we will be in debt (not by $ 2m but in debt none the less) for the first time in a number of years. However, Casey and his board have not walked away - they have put together a business plan (that has the backing of the AFL) that will claw us out of this mess we are in. One of the most pleasing part of this plan for my view point is finally thay are not going to rely on the teams on field performance to try and make a profit. For far to long gate receipts and the hope the team is going to perfrom has dominated the Clubs thinking. Whether, people want to acknowledge it or not Brendan Schwab and Peter Welsh were members of the boards that used this archaic thinking. And it has cost us.
Then we have Schwab who continues to tell us nothing new but what we already know. He tells us the figures are bad - we know it. He has told us that "we will need strong medicine" but hasn't explained what the storng medicine is going to be except hinting that it may involve cost cutting. the cost cutting has already started. So it appears he constantly tells us what we arleady know. The Schwab ticket has offered nothing in terms of policy or strategies all they do is offer up the same old same old - nothing new. Oops I tell a lie - they offer us a female on their ticket as if to say here's a good reason to vote for us. What a surprise it was that one of the first articles from Caro on her return from Greece was the latest instalment in the "Schwab take-over". As I said nothing new just the same old same old.
So we have 2 choices.
BG25, said it perfectly the other day - Casey's money and ego wont let the Tigers fail. Can Schwab offer us the same guarantees - the answer is NO and as a result with the 2 choices available Casey gets my vote.
This is the most sensible post I've read on this issue. Thanks
However, this is not a case of a crap pres against a couple of guys that walked away and now want to come back. These couple of guys resigned in protest at how the pres was running the club, how much money it was losing.
We've all got reason to be disappointed with what swab ended up producing. The expectation all year was that a lot of Tiger heavies would be on the ticket. There were business leaders like Macek and Daphne all publicaly saying the same things swab is saying now, that the club was in deep trouble financially, that Casey had a lot too answer for. And there were a lot of Tigers supporters posting on BF and other sites about getting rid of Casey.
So the fact that swab came up empty is reason enough to dismiss him. And I agree with this. But gee, Casey getting clapped these days doesnt sit well with me either.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Caroline Wilson
- with Jake Niall
Schwab's challenge looks certain to expand by one tomorrow to give his ticket the required nine members to remove Casey.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope it's someone with good business acumen to give the alternative what it seems to be lacking.
Accountants and lawyers are smart so important for a business, but their world of living by the bottom-line and covering @rses from every legal angle can be totally impersonal and removed from the work that is required to reach goals.
There seems to be a conflict stopping John Ilhan from jumping on board (Motorola sponsorship?), but he is the type of innovative and successful businessman who I think could make the Schwab ticket better able to run the club if they won the election.
-
Just read on foxsports than Macek is set to replace Swab as leading the challenge.
Interested to know if those supporting Casey over swab, will support Casey over Macek...
Macek told The Australian last night he would make a decision this week about whether to join Schwab's ticket in readiness for the December general meeting.
"I've been encouraged by family, friends and supporters to make a commitment to the club," Macek said. "If I join Brendan's ticket, and they want me to stand as president, I certainly wouldn't rule that out."
Macek, a member of the Telstra and Wesfarmers boards and chairman of the Financial Reporting Council, said in June he was highly concerned about the direction of Richmond.
"Concerned with a capital C," he said. "I believe a fish rots from the head and I believe this administration has failed the football club."
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,10691088-23211,00.html
-
Would Schwab stand down as the leader of the ticket in favour of Charles?
If so, what kind of leader is he anyway if he would fold so early and easily? I'd probably vote for Charles, but i definitely will not vote for Schwab . I'm so sick of seeing kids of great people think they can repeat the deeds of their fathers. You're no Alan Schwab, Brendan. Neither was Cameron. I'm sure they're nice people, but get the hell out of trying to run our club.
-
I wonder if Schwab's seen the writing on the wall if he remained leader of the alternative. Then again he's not standing down completely off the ticket. Nor is Welsh. Wasn't Macek a former board member anyway under Daphne?
Names don't mean much to me anyway. I want to see detailed outlines of their future plans for the RFC and so far the alternative ticket has only complained about things we already know; not what they plan to do differently to the incumbants.
-
Charles is a nice man. Likes a drink back at the social club with his wife Jill who is president of a VFA club which i can't remember now - so he gets my vote there 'cos he'll mix with the masses. Is a very successful businessman. Charisma? Questionable. Passionate Richmond? I think so. Good speaker as we've heard before, but i would like to hear what he has to say as well about what he wants for the future, how he can reduce our debt etc. I really think anyone bar Mickey Mouse could lead our club now we've got Wallace on board - i'm sure membership will increase just with his appointment, and as we win more games, the revenue will flow.
-
i always got the feeling that Schwab never wanted to be president, he wanted to be involved but was just the person who got the ball rolling. This could really change things i reckon, Macek has been involved under Daphne and the club was really travelling well off field at that time.
I think Casey would be worried now.
-
They read a press release on SEN from the Schwab camp while I was driving home - it said that Charles Macek would (if the Schwab ticket was sucessful) be the new Richmond President and Brendan would be Vice-President. De ja vu :P
They interviewed Charles and he said amongst other things that the finances were bad but we don't know how bad, that the last 2-3 years the club had its very fabric destroyed( :-\ not sure what that means), tried to explain why he quit the board in 1999 but said it was long story but the short version was he quit to make the transistion from the Daphne board to the Casey board smooth and then said something about Clinton not wanting him (another comment that I didn't quite understand). Was critical that directors don't travel intersate when the team does. Personally I thought this was a strange comment because when you are financially in the doghouse I would have thought saving money was more important than Directors flying interstate. Was also critical of the alternatives having to sign a confidentiality agreement before seeing the books - he said that defeated ther purpose of them being able to tell us what's wrong down there.
But he did make some sense when he said that the alternative ticket would consider the financial implcations on the Club before calling an EGM. His arguement being, the cost of running an EGM and then within a month having an AGM may not be a wise thing considering our financial situation.
Channel 7 also interviewed Schwab and he said now there was absolutely no reason why Casey shouldn't resign because a viable alternative had come forward
I wonder if Schwab's seen the writing on the wall if he remained leader of the alternative. Then again he's not standing down completely off the ticket. Nor is Welsh. Wasn't Macek a former board member anyway under Daphne?
Yes I think Schwab may have got the message that he absolutely no chance of winning an election. Smartest thing he's done since he started his ticket.
Yes Charles Macek was on the board from 1995 to 1999 when he resigned. He also said on SEN that he was part of the board during the SOS campaign.
Just read on foxsports than Macek is set to replace Swab as leading the challenge.
Interested to know if those supporting Casey over swab, will support Casey over Macek...
Honeestly after hearing him on SEN - the answer to that 1980 is no - not until he puts forward his plans for the future of the RFC - until then I still cannot support the alternative. Macek like Schwab told me whats wrong but didn't give me any idea how he/they intend to fix it.
i always got the feeling that Schwab never wanted to be president,
I disagree with you here Bully - I think he wanted to be President but he has realised he had no hope of winning. I am sure all his people out there ;) have been telling him that
-
I am sick of all this crap. Unfortunately ALL particapants in this soap opera have overshadowed what the RFC is all about, winning games of football.
I am sick of reading absolute dribble of opinions of NOBODIES on other forums rant and rave about crap.
Facts of the matter are as follows.
We had a coach that couldnt coach and had a poor list -no-one would disagree there
this caused a down turn in gate receipts and overall revenue- FACT.
the club relied on revenue from gaming venues which fell way short of forecasts thus causing massive shortfall- FACT.
And the last fact is that Total number of all posters from PRE and OER and any other forums are about 1% of the total membership of the RFC club, FACT !
What do the other 99% think of the RFC ? Answer. they dont really care. All they want is to see the Tigers in the finals.
We dont here boo from the Essendon, West Coast, Kangaroos or most other Presidents or board memebers do we.
Dont see the Kanagaroo supporters jumping up and down about there losses, do we?
-
Clinton has just come out of the monthly board meeting. Talking footy said he's going to face the challenge head on with the plan ticked off by the AFL. The board tonight agreed to the plan. Obviously no sign of an internal dispute within the incumbant board towards Casey as some people were trying to make out.
Forget to mention that Casey intends to make a public statement on the issue tomorrow.
-
Macek spearheads takeover bid
By Jake Niall
realfooty.theage.com.au
September 8, 2004
The forces opposing Richmond president Clinton Casey have made their boldest move yet, installing corporate heavyweight and former Richmond director Charles Macek as their presidential candidate in place of his running mate Brendan Schwab.
Schwab's group, believing that Macek's corporate and business connections make him a more electable president than Schwab, yesterday confirmed that its seven-strong ticket had expanded to nine, while placing Macek at the head of the ticket.
Macek, a former director under the previous Leon Daphne administration, had been in discussions with Schwab for some time and has been a trenchant critic of the Casey board.
When Casey came to power, one of his first acts was to request that Macek step aside. Macek had expressed a desire to be president then.
Macek said yesterday that once he had been persuaded to join the challenge, the rest of the group, including Schwab, felt he had the best credentials to be the prospective president.
Macek, who is on the board of Telstra and Wesfarmers, is a friend of the AFL's senior commissioner, Colin Carter, also a Wesfarmers director, and the Schwab camp believed his corporate connections would make the club more marketable to members and sponsors. Macek's record suggests he takes a hardline on corporate governance and on a separation between the board and the executive.
He said the challengers wanted the entire board replaced by their group of nine, which, following Macek's addition, has four people who have served as club directors in the past - Macek, Schwab, former football director Peter Welsh and liquidation specialist Mike Humphris. The ticket also includes a woman, lawyer Sharon Hall, and former premiership player Bryan Wood.
Casey and the board met last night and heard a presentation from the club's new chief executive, Steve Wright, on the club's financial position. But the Macek-Schwab challenge, which, if successful, would result in a complete cleanout of the current board, was not discussed in detail. Casey is about to head overseas for more than a month.
As of earlier this week, Casey had indicated his wish to continue as president. At least one director, Rob Turner, was believed to be considering his position.
The group of nine challengers yesterday repeated the claim that Casey had failed to honour the July agreement between the camps and called on him and the board to step aside.
"I don't see how there's any leeway," said Macek, when asked if there was still room for one of the current board to join his camp.
Unless Casey and the board step aside, the Macek-led group will stand against it at the annual meeting in December.
Macek said it would be his preference to have the election, should it be necessary, then, rather than at an earlier extraordinary general meeting, which would cost the club tens of thousands of dollars.
He said his group supported the appointments of Terry Wallace - as negotiated in the July "truce" between the factions - and of chief executive Steve Wright. He also offered an endorsement of influential football director Greg Miller.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/09/07/1094530611386.html
-
Casey's had his go in the sun and it's time he passed the baton in a peaceful manner. He said he'd do so if a viable alternative came along. Macek appears to fit the bill. Hat's off to Schwab for putting the club ahead of his ego, something Casey isn't able to do. 2.4 Mill is a massive loss in one year, especially when you are the RFC with our supporter base. Plain and simple mismanagement.
-
Casey and the current board can walk if they want to, but surely having a board election is both peaceful - and allows the members to have their say. Private deals done to arrange handovers from one group to the next serve only to disenfranchise the members.
-
Macek, another disgruntled EX- BOARD member.
-
There should be no tickets - just shove all these people up on both sides who want to stand for the election.
But tell me something oh wise ppl who know more than me (which is just about everyone lol) what happens next year? Because aren't 3 board members each year meant to stand down for re-election each year?
-
We need NEW FACES on the board, not recylced hacks. Our board is like our footy team, pick up the Houlihans, Britains, of this world , fair dinkum.
I am Glad that Macek has jumped on board as the "alternative ticket is not an option now, probably never was.
If Caseys board isnt the answer, lets hope a " New Ticket "comes to hand with new faces and new ideas, otherwise there is no alternative.
At least the current board is learning by there mistakes
-
I note one of the new members on the Schwab ticket:
female
31 years old
lawyer
hmm - that's three things that are a worry.
:-[
-
PLEASE EXPLAIN MORE RONNIE lol
I might have to put you over my knee tonight :P
:rollin
-
The Schwab ticket is an insult to people’s intelligence.
They can shuffle the deck chairs all they like, but unless they come up with some meaningful plan to get us out of the hole we’re in, they are just kidding themselves.
Macek, another disgruntled EX- BOARD member.
Yep and he said, on Fox Footy back in June this year, that he didn't have the time to devote to the Presidency.
There should be no tickets - just shove all these people up on both sides who want to stand for the election.
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve never been in favour of going down this track, because it just perpetuates the old Richmond way of doing things that has never solved anything, but has created this never-ending cycle that I wish we could just get off. And we could if people would just nominate themselves for the Board, rather than seeing these civil wars break out whenever someone gets their nose out of joint.
You could take these people seriously if they actually knew what they were doing, had a plan of action and demonstrated they were totally committed to RFC. Instead, we get these half-hearted, short-sighted, lightweights who haven’t got the time or the inclination one day, but oodles of time the next, in which to resurrect RFC.
Like others, I’m sick of all this political poncing. And I’ll continue to support the current administration, because what other option is there, when no viable alternative has materialised to now? And you have to doubt that one will, barring a miracle, because saviours of the RFC aren’t exactly falling out of the sky, not ones with half a clue and the time to do the job justice, anyway.
-
Facts of the matter are as follows.
We had a coach that couldnt coach and had a poor list -no-one would disagree there
this caused a down turn in gate receipts and overall revenue- FACT.
the club relied on revenue from gaming venues which fell way short of forecasts thus causing massive shortfall- FACT.
Facts of the matter are that we are:
1) wooden spooners
2) with 27k+ members, we still lost a record $2.4m
3) we are bottom of all melb clubs for attracting corporate sponsers
4) we did stupid things like outsource key revenue streams to Craig Kelly and Elite Sports
5) we hired a CEO without interviewing him on the AFL's recommmendation who cost us even more money
You just cant do any worse in one year without kicking off another SOS campaign. This is the lowest we've been since 1990, 14 years ago, and the man responsible should go.
If you had concerns about a liteweight like swab taking over, then you've got no reason to worry about it any longer now that Macek is nominating for the job.
-
If you had concerns about a liteweight like swab taking over, then you've got no reason to worry about it any longer now that Macek is nominating for the job.
I think we would still have lots to worry about.
How has Macek got the time and enthusiasm to do the job now when he didn’t have any of that 3 months ago? What if he says he will do the job and a short time after taking over the role decides he doesn’t have the time after all and hands it over to Schwab?
Who’s supporting him and what’s their plan? If it’s the same people and the same plan they had before they’ll never ever get my support.
What are their reasons for going down this track and why can’t they just nominate for the Board? They could give us a whole bunch of reasons, but I doubt any of them could justify this sort of approach. So why would I want a Board made up of wishy washy members who have no justifiable reason for any of this?
Why can’t they work with the Club, instead of against it?
From the changes the Club has made recently, what do they see as being wrong with how they have gone about things? I doubt they would even know and if they don’t it just makes this whole thing a bigger farce than I thought possible.
They look a bit silly when RFC has been in action for some time now, making much needed changes. While Schwab and co have been busy doing nothing, the whole thing seems to have all but passed them by.
-
If you had concerns about a liteweight like swab taking over, then you've got no reason to worry about it any longer now that Macek is nominating for the job.
But unfortunately I still have concerns with Macek. He coveted the presidency of the RFC when Leon Daphne stood down - he has always wanted to be President. I said yesterday that when Macek was on SEN he told us what was wrong but like the rest of the ticket didn't tell me or any one else what he and his ticket were going to do to fix the problems.
I am so tired of being told what's wrong - I know what is wrong - give me a viable plan to fix the problems and I'll listen. And please don't use the excuse of "we not being shown the books" - we all know what's in them.
The current administration has a plan - which appears to be a good one - this ticket has nothing.
As TS said Macek said in June that he didn't have the time. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of time these people seem to be able to find now.
I have thought about this alot and my view has not changed. Bottom line if the only alternative is ticket that contains 4 former board members and continues to not put forward any plan for the future of our footy club versus what we have now (remembering they have put forward their plan to fix the problems and it has the backing of the AFL) then I would still vote for the current board.
-
Agree with 1980.
You can't forgive and forget the damage Casey has done to this club. Bottom line. You can't sit and hope Casey has learnt from his mistakes.....we did this with Frawley and look where it got us.
Why can't he fill the board vacancies ? Is he looking for more yes men ?
The internal rumblings within the current administration further proves that Casey is not the man for the job.
What people say when they resign from the board should be taken with a grain of salt. "Don't have the time", or "have got other priorities" are all standard lines everyone uses when departing. It's not like they will publicly say that the president is a dictator and the remaining board is full of yes men. They had the club's interest at heart and I don't hold anything against these former board members. When suggestions and recommendations fall on deaf ears, the only alternative you have is to leave.
Bring on Macek. He is a viable alternative.
-
Casey and the current board can walk if they want to, but surely having a board election is both peaceful - and allows the members to have their say. Private deals done to arrange handovers from one group to the next serve only to disenfranchise the members.
I agree that an election should be held to allow members to have THEIR say. I REALLY resent one or two people mounting a challenge and DEMANDING that the current President step aside, with threats of action if they don't......there is a term for that - BLACKMAIL.
How dare they make demands and not go to the members, after all whether they were good or bad choices in the first place they were the CHOICE of the members i.e. we voted for the current board (that is those that could be bothered.
Speaking of finances....yes we had money when Daphne was Pres, but look at the state of Punt Rd......our player and administration facilities were a joke. We sold stuff and worked out of portable rooms. Yes we raised money through the Dyer foundation and the AFL and MCC gave money towards them but I think RFC has probably also contributed. Since 9/11 there has also been a downward trend in money markets and companies are also generally tighter with their money....so there are other reasons apart from simply bad fiscal management.
Casey's no saint, but the alternative no way!
-
Beats me why suddenly ppl on some boards are suddenly so pro Mickey Mouse ticket now that Charles Macek has come on board. Do they really know him, his background or just impressed by his curriculum vitae?
I bet there are many more contesting/existing board members with just as impressive credentials.
What's so great about Charles - pls tell me. Nice bloke, successful individual but why the sudden turnaround by ppl and just because he has those great qualities, what makes ppl think he will be good as a footy director/president.
He was on the board before - what did he do while he was on that board pls - i'm asking because I don't know.
Did he do anything greater than what we have now or was he just there at the right time when our finances were right?
Was he finance director?
What was his role? Was he an active member of the board - or just sat back and watched others around him do everything? If my memory serves me correct, people who were on the board at the time weren't too impressed with him. My memory could be wrong and i have misjudged him, but i have queries about him that i want answered.
I know he's successful - i want to know if he can fit in his life the RFC and make it as much a priority as his other business interests and more so.
He gets my vote at the moment based on the fact he has been nice to me in that past lol
But I don't know who i'm going to vote for at the end of the day and will make my decision at the very last moment based on all the info i can accumulate.
But i bet i won't be swayed by the fact he was nice to me - i need more info on why I should vote for him.
Same for all candidates and existing board members.
And i don't want to read curriculum vitaes - i want to hear from people who can give balanced views on them, even if they are best of mates with them. I bet that never happens, but i'll be delving tonight to get ppl's views.
-
Bring on Macek. He is a viable alternative.
On the basis of what is Macek a viable alternative? Because people don’t rate Casey? If Macek has nuff nuffs on his ticket, how is him now being the front man to that short-sighted group going to change or improve anything significantly enough to warrant people changing their minds about them? Unless they offer something better and different then we might as well proceed the way we are, if that’s the case.
And seeing as Casey has put himself up for re-election, members can decide his fate then. At least that way we get a say on how things turn out.
And that’s one of the main reasons I don’t agree with or support any of this rebel ticket stuff. Especially when they don’t explain the reasons for this course of action. And they haven’t even given us any reason as to why and how they will be any better than the current Board.
We can continue to play tennis with who is better or worse, of the two, but it seems that there are no innocent parties here. All are tainted to some degree, and for one reason or another.
So it seems to boil itself down to a choice between the devil we know and the one we don’t. Therefore, I would rather see Richmond run democratically for once and send out a message that we members want and deserve to have a say, rather than continually letting a few have their say for us.
Casey and the current board can walk if they want to, but surely having a board election is both peaceful - and allows the members to have their say. Private deals done to arrange handovers from one group to the next serve only to disenfranchise the members.
I agree that an election should be held to allow members to have THEIR say. I REALLY resent one or two people mounting a challenge and DEMANDING that the current President step aside, with threats of action if they don't......there is a term for that - BLACKMAIL.
Totally agree with Piping Shrike and bg25.
-
Bring on Macek. He is a viable alternative.
On the basis of what is Macek a viable alternative?
And that’s one of the main reasons I don’t agree with or support any of this rebel ticket stuff. Especially when they don’t explain the reasons for this course of action. And they haven’t even given us any reason as to why and how they will be any better than the current Board.
Macek is a viable alternative because when he was on the board we had $1m in the bank. Now we have a loss of $2.4m.
They have explained their reasons for this course of actions. 2.4m of them. Their reason is the club is badly run, losing money, turning profits into losses, not attracting corporate sponsers, winning wooden spoons. Appointing crap CEOs then firing them....
How many more reasons do you need?
Seems to me the only time you think that warrants a change of board is if the club is reduced again to rattling tins again. Everything else is fine with you up to that point.
-
If you had concerns about a liteweight like swab taking over, then you've got no reason to worry about it any longer now that Macek is nominating for the job.
But unfortunately I still have concerns with Macek. He coveted the presidency of the RFC when Leon Daphne stood down - he has always wanted to be President. I said yesterday that when Macek was on SEN he told us what was wrong but like the rest of the ticket didn't tell me or any one else what he and his ticket were going to do to fix the problems.
I am so tired of being told what's wrong - I know what is wrong - give me a viable plan to fix the problems and I'll listen. And please don't use the excuse of "we not being shown the books" - we all know what's in them.
The current administration has a plan - which appears to be a good one - this ticket has nothing.
As TS said Macek said in June that he didn't have the time. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of time these people seem to be able to find now.
I have thought about this alot and my view has not changed. Bottom line if the only alternative is ticket that contains 4 former board members and continues to not put forward any plan for the future of our footy club versus what we have now (remembering they have put forward their plan to fix the problems and it has the backing of the AFL) then I would still vote for the current board.
Well WP we've been at this all week so neither of us is going to change our minds LOL
But a footy club has to be successful both on and off the park. Very few clubs are successful when they're losing money and when the board is disfunctional. Essendon is a good example as a Melb club. As much as we hate Eddie, that scum of a club has been very different since he took over.
When it comes to our footy club, no-one can argue that Casey is anything but a loser. A loser of money, a loser of board directors. The only thing he has won for us is a wooden spoon. Again sympbolic of what a loser he is.
You leave a guy in there that inherits $1m and turns into a loss of $2.4m, he'll lose you $3m the next year. I wish my boss was as generous as you are. Thanks for losing us so much money sonny but we're not going to fire you, we're going to keep you there until someone comes along and convinces us they wont do the same.
You can focus on Macek and demand to see his plan all you like, but the bottom line is, the guy that caused the losses should go. He's bad for the club. He's a proven loser. If he put the club before himself, he would have gone already.
And at least Macek is a Richmond supporter. Casey was an Essendon supporter.
-
Macek is a viable alternative because when he was on the board we had $1m in the bank. Now we have a loss of $2.4m.
We might have had money in the bank, but we couldn’t play footy to save ourselves. Can they guarantee they can put together a competitive team on the ground?
They have explained their reasons for this course of actions. 2.4m of them. Their reason is the club is badly run, losing money, turning profits into losses, not attracting corporate sponsers, winning wooden spoons. Appointing crap CEOs then firing them....
How many more reasons do you need?
I think I’ve explained myself, time after time. As WP says, we know what’s wrong, we just want to know how they will fix it. If I don’t know that then how can I or anyone support them? I don’t expect you to agree or even like my view, but it’s the only one I have. I want the Club run democratically, not by a bunch of short-sighted nuff nuffs who just seem to have their collective noses out of joint, because they haven’t given any logical explanation as to why they are doing this.
Seems to me the only time you think that warrants a change of board is if the club is reduced again to rattling tins again. Everything else is fine with you up to that point.
If you think that the alternative is ok, then you believe that. But I have seen nothing that makes me think they can do any better. They might be conservative enough to get us back on a financial footing but, from what they have shown, they do not have the vision and capacity to ensure that we put together a team capable of playing competitive football, which, in time, will undoubtedly ensure more upheaval and turmoil.
So, rather than coming to that inevitable conclusion, why don’t we just start running our Club in a democratic way and cut the petty rebel ticket scenarios every other year? That’s where I’m coming from.
-
Well WP we've been at this all week so neither of us is going to change our minds LOL
That we have 1980 and it's been a good debate I reckon :thumbsup
Macek is a viable alternative because when he was on the board we had $1m in the bank. Now we have a loss of $2.4m.
Interesting way at looking at 1980. I don't think you can say he is the sole reason why we had money.
And just to show how easy it is to make things look bad...
Macek was on the board from May 1994 to Dec 1999. The RFC year runs from Nov to Oct.
Just looking at the books for the years Macek was on the board it says that in Macek's final year onthe board 1999/2000 the Club lost just under $640,000. How do you think Macek would explain that? I reckon he'd say like Brendan Schwab I wasn't on the board so it aint my fault.
And just to clarify we lose $2.1 million doesn't mean we are $2.1 million in debt. My maths tells me that we will have a debt of $600,000 not great but certainly managable
They have explained their reasons for this course of actions. 2.4m of them. Their reason is the club is badly run, losing money, turning profits into losses, not attracting corporate sponsers, winning wooden spoons. Appointing crap CEOs then firing them....
How many more reasons do you need?
And when are Schwab and Welsh (the forgetten man ::)) going to take some responsibility for their actions in the loss over the last 3 years.
I know I harp on this but they really need to take some responsibility and until they do there is absolute no way I would even consider voting for them.
-
Fact, Casey was never a Essendon supporter. His brother Mark is an Essendonian.. Clinton PLAYED football in the Essendon District. FACT. He won 3 competition Best and Fairest. 1981-1984 FACT.
Because he played football and grew up in Essendon doesnt make him an ESSENDON SUPPORTER, Guilty by association.
Fair dinkum !
His Dad actually took him to Richmond games as a kid. How do I know, I went to school with him !
-
And when are Schwab and Welsh (the forgetten man ::)) going to take some responsibility for their actions in the loss over the last 3 years.
I know I harp on this but they really need to take some responsibility and until they do there is absolute no way I would even consider voting for them.
They did take responsibility. They resigned. That is the only option available to a director if he disagrees with the way a board is operating. Resign.
Not only did they resign because the club was making losses, but because the president was not informing the rest of the board of the size of the losses. That is their claim. When you've got a pres that runs a one man board, which Casey has been doing for 5 years, you go. They did.
And, its not just about the books. This clown was appointing CEOs on his own. Even when Campbell was sacked, he was going to appoint the new CEO without the board even having the opportunity of interviewing him.
Its an easy debate when its about swab and whether he is a suitable president. But its very difficult to argue that Clinton Casey has done a good job as pres for the RFC. He is to the presidents job what Frawley was to the coaching job. We're better off without both of them.
-
Hey 1980, I totally agree with your last post, you are right.
I would believe they have learnt by there mistakes.
Do you put the alternative ticket in and make the same mistakes in the learning process ?
I will tell you something, Mickey Mouse, Woosha Welsh, and or Macek arent the answer either ?
Macek, lets dont go there, something about backs and knifes ::)
Hasnt got many friends you might find !
Its amazing the somebody puts there hand up and wants to be President and people say, yeah he is the right man without knowing there background. It seems alot of these people are on ego trips.
we need a leader of people, not back stabbers or ego chasers :banghead
-
Macek is a viable alternative because when he was on the board we had $1m in the bank. Now we have a loss of $2.4m.
We might have had money in the bank, but we couldn’t play footy to save ourselves. Can they guarantee they can put together a competitive team on the ground?
They have explained their reasons for this course of actions. 2.4m of them. Their reason is the club is badly run, losing money, turning profits into losses, not attracting corporate sponsers, winning wooden spoons. Appointing crap CEOs then firing them....
How many more reasons do you need?
I think I’ve explained myself, time after time. As WP says, we know what’s wrong, we just want to know how they will fix it. If I don’t know that then how can I or anyone support them? I don’t expect you to agree or even like my view, but it’s the only one I have. I want the Club run democratically, not by a bunch of short-sighted nuff nuffs who just seem to have their collective noses out of joint, because they haven’t given any logical explanation as to why they are doing this.
Seems to me the only time you think that warrants a change of board is if the club is reduced again to rattling tins again. Everything else is fine with you up to that point.
If you think that the alternative is ok, then you believe that. But I have seen nothing that makes me think they can do any better. They might be conservative enough to get us back on a financial footing but, from what they have shown, they do not have the vision and capacity to ensure that we put together a team capable of playing competitive football, which, in time, will undoubtedly ensure more upheaval and turmoil.
So, rather than coming to that inevitable conclusion, why don’t we just start running our Club in a democratic way and cut the petty rebel ticket scenarios every other year? That’s where I’m coming from.
Where were you in Sept 1995? First finals in 13 years? Beating the scum of all scum in a semi-final!!!
How many wooden spoons did we win when Macek was on the board?
Are you telling me we've put competitive teams on the ground whilst Casey was president? 7 wins 2002, 7 wins 2003, wooden spooners 2004.
Really TS!!!
Mate, I normally enjoy your posts. Not to say I dont enjoy your posts on this thread either. But telling me we wont be able to put out competitive teams without Casey as the president is bordering on the ridiculous.
-
Hey 1980, I totally agree with your last post, you are right.
I would believe they have learnt by there mistakes.
Do you put the alternative ticket in and make the same mistakes in the learning process ?
I will tell you something, Mickey Mouse, Woosha Welsh, and or Macek arent the answer either ?
Macek, lets dont go there, something about backs and knifes ::)
Hasnt got many friends you might find !
Its amazing the somebody puts there hand up and wants to be President and people say, yeah he is the right man without knowing there background. It seems alot of these people are on ego trips.
we need a leader of people, not back stabbers or ego chasers :banghead
And right there Jackstar, you've summed up the whole debate. What we have sucks. The alternative we're offered sucks too.
Some of us think if we're going to have someone as president that sucks, why bother changing the one we already have that sucks.
Others of us, ie me, wants a message sent from the members that if you screw up, you go. And that may be just a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. But I am a strong believer that if you let a guy like Casey lose money, and he gets away with it, he'll take us for granted and do it again. He has been acting much more democratically and accountable to the members since the challenges started. And that may be the only good thing that comes out of all this. Maybe...
-
Mate, I normally enjoy your posts. Not to say I dont enjoy your posts on this thread either. But telling me we wont be able to put out competitive teams without Casey as the president is bordering on the ridiculous.
1980, that’s your interpretation of what I said and isn’t what I said or meant. If you read and clearly understand what I have said you will see the reason for my stance on this.
I’m just giving my view on the situation that I see before me and where I see it’s more than likely headed, given past history. If we want to change the way this Club is run then it has to start with us members. For members to allow a rebel ticket to come in will send us down the same path as before and it’s our fault if that happens. At least if we get to have a say as to who goes on the Board then there can be no complaints. Is it unfair or unreasonable to expect to have a say as a member of the footy Club?
The easy way out is to bring in a new group because they are shiny and new and will solve all our problems. We hope. We’ve been doing that since who knows when and it’s never worked. The tough thing for us to do now would be for us members to take the hard road and take back some control of the Club. Because I’m fed up with people like Schwab and Welsh, who have had their go, coming in and rail roading the Club whenever they feel like it. That’s what I want to stop.
If you still don’t understand what I’m trying to say then maybe we should just agree to disagree.
-
Others of us, ie me, wants a message sent from the members that if you screw up, you go. And that may be just a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. But I am a strong believer that if you let a guy like Casey lose money, and he gets away with it, he'll take us for granted and do it again. He has been acting much more democratically and accountable to the members since the challenges started. And that may be the only good thing that comes out of all this. Maybe...
1980, I can understand the reason for you being so upset with Casey and it’s really funny that I’m so upset with Schwab, so is it any wonder we can’t agree on this. :cheers
But at least I understand you a bit better now. :thumbsup
If it makes it any better, Casey has put himself up for re-election this time round, even though he wasn’t due for re-election this year, I believe. Members can have their say then.
Is that fair and reasonable? ;)
-
Others of us, ie me, wants a message sent from the members that if you screw up, you go. And that may be just a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. But I am a strong believer that if you let a guy like Casey lose money, and he gets away with it, he'll take us for granted and do it again. He has been acting much more democratically and accountable to the members since the challenges started. And that may be the only good thing that comes out of all this. Maybe...
1980, I can understand the reason for you being so upset with Casey and it’s really funny that I’m so upset with Schwab, so is it any wonder we can’t agree on this. :cheers
But at least I understand you a bit better now. :thumbsup
If it makes it any better, Casey has put himself up for re-election this time round, even though he wasn’t due for re-election this year, I believe. Members can have their say then.
Is that fair and reasonable? ;)
LMAO TS at one hating Casey and the other hating swab. You'd think both numnuts would cancel each other out.
Anyway, this is all a moot discussion now. Casey said if someone better qualified came up he'd step aside. He's had an easy time arguing this against a d1k like swab, but he's got no chance of arguing that he's a better corporate leader than Macek. So, if he sticks to his word, he's going to step aside for the good of the club. And the rest of the ticket challenging (ie swab and Welsh) can disappear.
-
Like froars and TS, I hope there is no handover and we have an election. Those who want to lead our club into the future should face the members with their plans before us. The future board whoever they are needs to be passed by the majority of members; not given power in a backroom somewhere on a platter. They need to be held accountable.
My concerns as has been the case all along is we'll replace one failed board with another board run by ex-board members who have failed us in the past. The Alternative ticket now has four of them.
As much as Macek may be a friendlier and approachable person and has excellent business credentials, when he was last on the board from 94-99 we went through 3 coaches with a 4th needing to be appointed when he left. As a result, unlike this year with Wallace, no decent aspirant coach wanted to go near us by the end of 1999 so we ended up with Frawley. Like Casey's regime our on-field performance after a fleeting finals campaign was mediocre with finishes of 9th in 96, 12th in 97(misleading given we won 4 out of our last 5 after Geisch replaced the sacked Walls), 9th in 98 and 13th in 99. At the end of 1998 promises of major changes were made but unlike now nothing was done about it and we remained in mediocre land. In 99 despite lagging in the bottom 4 we re-signed Daffy, Knights, Cambo and Richo to $$$ and long-term deals. On top of this as TS has already mentioned the club was run on a shoe-string budget. Yes that's better than losing $2.4 mill but we weren't going anywhere.
As much as I don't want Casey around either due to his failed record, at least now I see positive change occurring. It's taken a year of major stupidity and failure to do it - a wooden spoon as well as putting heaps of $$$ into a footy department that blind freddy could see would fail again big time in the hope success would come out of thin air - but nevertheless the Club is now moving forward.
As for current and future plans:
- Not caving in to outside pressure and sacking the coach unlike previous admins. Short term agony for long term benefit (ie. getting Wallace). I know many disagree with me in keeping on Danny.
- The appointments of Wright along with Wallace to go with Miller.
- The beginnings of a total clean out of our list and finally the Club understanding the merits of drafting youth.
- Our TTP will be reduced from 100% to 97% and ridiculous $$$ contracts should become a thing of the past.
- Recognition that's we've got a big job to fix us up and it's going to take time.
- Wright mentioned on club snorner that we'll be now following realistic and achievable budgets. We won't be relying on and budgeting for good gate receipt numbers and a good on-field performance to balance the books as we've done in the past.
- AFL acceptance of our 2005 and beyond business plan.
One area I haven't heard from the current board is how they'll increase the all important corporate sponsorship dollar. Wright made mention of the need for it but no detailed plans has been shown.
All I've heard from the alternative is ear-friendly rhetoric, their support for the appointments of Wright, Miller and Wallace and what is and went wrong. We already know about these things and in regard to what went wrong we know why it happened.
Where's your alternative detailed future plans boys and girl?
-
Casey to fight rebel Tigers
By Jake Niall
realfooty.theage.com.au
September 9, 2004
In confirming his desire to remain at the helm at Tigerland, Richmond president Clinton Casey has taken a swipe at the "recycled" reform ticket led by former director Charles Macek.
Casey yesterday issued a statement in which he declared his intention to stay as president - ensuring Richmond members would face a full board election in December between the nine challengers and the board.
Casey said that the Richmond board, which met on Tuesday night, was "unified" despite claims from the Macek-Brendan Schwab group that the board was fractured in its support for the president.
While some board members have held discussions with Macek's group, none has moved across to the other camp. The rebels, who replaced Schwab with the more corporate-connected Macek as their prospective president, claim that only their group can bring the necessary unity to Punt Road.
Casey maintains it is not a time for the club to take "an unnecessary risk" by changing the board, adding that he did not think the Macek-led group represented the "suitable" people he was prepared to stand aside for.
"After consultation with fellow board members, as well as discussions with sponsors, coterie groups and members, I believe I have strong support as president," he said.
Casey said he stood by his promise to step aside if a more suitable candidate emerged, but added: "After reviewing the alternative ticket, I still believe that I am the most appropriate person to lead the club through such a delicate period. In regard to the new candidates on the ticket, I welcome the opportunity to meet anyone who believes they have something to offer. However, I don't believe this is the time for recycling former board members who had their chance to have an impact on the Club."
Macek served as a director under Leon Daphne's presidency and sought the presidency when Daphne resigned. Schwab, liquidation specialist Mike Humpris and former football director Peter Welsh - who like Schwab, resigned from the Casey board - are other "recycled" board candidates on the rebel ticket.
Casey said the club's "recovery" was on the way, with 50 professionals having committed $250,000 to part of a coterie group with access to new coach Terry Wallace and "several exciting sponsorship developments".
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/09/08/1094530690368.html
-
Casey said he stood by his promise to step aside if a more suitable candidate emerged, but added: "After reviewing the alternative ticket, I still believe that I am the most appropriate person to lead the club through such a delicate period. In regard to the new candidates on the ticket, I welcome the opportunity to meet anyone who believes they have something to offer. However, I don't believe this is the time for recycling former board members who had their chance to have an impact on the Club."
Has Clinton been reading OER ??? :-\ :shh :thumbsup ;D
-
Casey said the club's "recovery" was on the way, with 50 professionals having committed $250,000 to part of a coterie group with access to new coach Terry Wallace and "several exciting sponsorship developments".
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/09/08/1094530690368.html
I have to wonder if this is true, wishful thinking, a work in progress or simply untrue. I have never heard of such a coterie being formed yet alone being already in place. I have asked a number of people in other coterie groups which would normally be approached and they know nothing about it.
Has anyone heard of it - ?
-
Didnt you put $5000 in Ronnie, I did ;)
Maybe you should stop bidding for frivilous things at the auction last night ;)
Didnt you win that night for three at Daylesford ? I know who you could take as the third person :shh
Maybe you should ask more influencial supporters ;)
-
What was Eddie going on about at the start of TFS? Mentioned, along with the Rick Lewis slamming the AFL (not holding any punches either lol) and Don Scott at Hawthorn, about some news at Tigerland !?
-
Something about leader( Macek ) of the alternative ticket wins lawn bowls competition at retirement village,
Guarantee it wil be the usual crap about Mickey Mouse and looking at books etc
-
Might as well been that Jackstar lol as nothing was said ::).
-
It was just on the news - coterie member Rob Slade saying Clinton should stand down.
-
Interesting but my thoughts still don't change. All 27,500 of us should get the chance to decide yeah or neah not just a few "big wigs" of the club who jump up and down in the media. IMO it appears the movers and shakers are hell bent on avoiding facing the members. One side claiming it's for the sake of stability; the other claiming it's for the sake of unity. We've been down this path the last 20 years and it has gotten us nowhere :scream.
-
Casey's reign seems over
By Caroline Wilson
realfooty.theage.com.au
September 10, 2004
Clinton Casey's increasingly desperate bid to remain at the helm of the Richmond Football Club now looks certain to have failed as the embattled president yesterday faced dissent from his board, his coterie groups and former Tigers players.
With Brendan Schwab's group of challengers now a ticket of nine headed by a new alternative leader in Charles Macek, and at least one of Casey's directors, Rob Turner, plotting to overthrow him, the president's five-year reign appears all but finished.
In two of a series of attacks yesterday upon Casey, immediate past captain Matthew Knights said that Casey had "nil or no support from the former players", while Tom Hafey Club chairman Rob Slade said the president was "loathed by the coterie groups".
Disgruntled director Turner met Schwab on Tuesday and has reportedly tried to merge the present board with the challengers. Although Turner failed to confront Casey at Tuesday night's board meeting, he has indicated that at least three other directors have withdrawn their support for the president.
Casey left Wednesday night's best-and-fairest count almost immediately after the formal proceedings had finished. He flew overseas yesterday for a month-long trip still confident he could defeat the Schwab-Macek group, claiming in a bold statement that the club's sponsors and coterie groups were behind him.
That claim prompted Slade, a prominent horse syndicate owner who is also a five-year member of the president's men supporters' group, to fire an angry email to Casey on Wednesday night.
"He's loathed by the coterie groups," said Slade. "The first year I went back to the president's men, the suggestion was we should change the name because we never saw the president.
"I realise Ian Campbell did not work out as CEO. Well, Clinton selected him and then put all the blame on Campbell and the AFL for recommending him.
"He promised to step aside if a better candidate came along. Well, clearly that's a cop-out. With that proviso, he'll never walk. I said all this to him in my email and I've been deafened by his silence."
Knights' comments last night followed Brendon Gale's assertion on the Fox Footy channel that the present administration should take responsibility for the club's perilous circumstances.
"Clinton's been the leader of the club and when you plunge the club into a $2.5 million loss, that's enough of a reason in itself," said Knights, now coaching Port Adelaide in the SANFL.
"Having been around at the time of the Save Our Skins campaign and seeing the club plunged back into that disarray is unbelievable really.
"With the coaching role at Port, I only keep in touch from afar but I talk with players and former players. There is nil or no support from the former players.
"The club's been turned into a laughing stock over the last two years for the way it has been run and for people who are passionate about the club, that's difficult to take. I just want to see the club be competitive and successful and I believe the group challenging Clinton deserves a chance."
With corporate investigators having completed their assessment of the Tigers, the club will go into the 2005 season with only one full-time assistant coach - compared with three this year - with one part-time assistant expected to join Brian Royal in helping new coach Terry Wallace.
Football boss Greg Miller, who has indicated in the past that he would not serve under the challengers, said yesterday that Casey intended to remain at Tigerland and fight December's total spill of all board positions.
Miller said he would not be taking a seat on the board.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/09/09/1094530765814.html?oneclick=true
-
RICHMOND'S only surviving premiership president, Ian Wilson, has joined the call for change at Punt Rd.
Wallace on Swans
Semi-final teams
Our experts' tips
Week 1 finals
Casey chambers: Clinton Casey says he's not going anywhere.
Wilson said yesterday the Clinton Casey administration had presided over the darkest period in the club's history.
"The club's at rock bottom, the lowest ebb it's been in its history, and I'm just sick of watching it self-destruct," he said.
"There's got to be change. These blokes have presided over a wooden spoon year and a loss in the order of $2.5 million.
"Jack Dyer and Graeme Richmond would bloody well turn in their graves to see the pitiful state of the bloody joint now.
"Look, they'd be doing everyone a favour if they did what the old Arabs did: fold up their tents and fade into the night.
"Hey, the results are on the board. Read the papers every bloody week: we've won the wooden spoon and we're going to lose $2.5million.
"Anything's got to be better; let somebody else have a go.
"It's all very well for people to be talking about Hawthorn, well, they belted the s - - t out of us two weeks ago."
Wilson, 70, was Richmond president from 1974-85, a term that produced two premierships from five top-four finishes.
He remains a keen Richmond follower, but says he has no interest in resuming an active role at the club.
Wilson admitted to the Herald Sun he was a close friend of Peter Welsh, a key member of the Brendan Schwab group challenging for power, and also a member of the Casey board until early this year.
Wilson said he was speaking independently. "I'm speaking as a Richmond supporter, nothing else," he said.
"Look, running a footy club is as simple as this: winning games on Saturday afternoon and balancing the books. Winning football on a Saturday afternoon is all the average punter cares about.
"The new blokes are pretty well credentialled. They can't be worse than the old mob. You want someone to breathe some fire into the bloody joint.
"You walk into the place now and it's as flat as a s - - tcarter's hat.
"Twenty years ago, we were the most respected and feared club in the league. Now we're the easy beats."
Wilson said he had nothing personal against Casey.
"I really don't know him that well. He's always been pleasant to me, I can tell you. I'm not being judgmental on him personally, I'm only judging the performance.
"The club hasn't had a great five years, has it? Football clubs are run from the top. Very few football clubs win premierships with bad administrations.
"People are telling me they're sorry for the Tigers. I hate people being sorry for us. 'Poor old Richmond', they're saying. We liked it when people hated us because it meant we were successful. I think it's paramount there's change."
Asked if he were concerned director of football Greg Miller might reconsider his position if Casey lost the presidency, Wilson said: "I think he's done a good job, but if that's what he thinks, so be it."
Asked if running a football club were easier from the outside, he said: "I was the president of the club that swapped the Whale (Brian Roberts), Francis Jackson and Graham Teasdale, Brownlow medallist, for John Pitura."
Casey is overseas and could not be contacted last night.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,10720281%255E19742,00.html
-
Asked if he were concerned director of football Greg Miller might reconsider his position if Casey lost the presidency, Wilson said: "I think he's done a good job, but if that's what he thinks, so be it."
So be it is all he can say - this is getting scarier and scarier.
-
RICHMOND'S only surviving premiership president, Ian Wilson, has joined the call for change at Punt Rd.
Wilson said yesterday the Clinton Casey administration had presided over the darkest period in the club's history.
"The club's at rock bottom, the lowest ebb it's been in its history, and I'm just sick of watching it self-destruct," he said.
For crying out loud! ok I was only a kid when Ian was president but from my knowledge of the history of the RFC and forgetting two flags, the dismissal of 4 time premiership coach Tom Hafey after one poor season, the Pitura trade and 5 coaches in 10 years, we financially started to go a croppa towards the end of his reign via mainly a rampant chequebook trading war with the Pies where we lost 3 club champions in Raines, Cloke and Wood and recruited duds in their place. 1980's presidents shouldn't throw stones ::).
"Anything's got to be better; let somebody else have a go.
Groundhog Day! The scary thing is Ian's being serious :gobdrop. Talk about continuing on the cancerous attitude we've had at our Club the past 20+ years :banghead.
"Look, running a footy club is as simple as this: winning games on Saturday afternoon and balancing the books. Winning football on a Saturday afternoon is all the average punter cares about.
The last sentence is true but Ian you're just showing you haven't been president of a footy club for 20 years.
"The new blokes are pretty well credentialled. They can't be worse than the old mob. You want someone to breathe some fire into the bloody joint.
The leaders of the alternative group aren't new ::). Once again the attitude of change for change sake and out of panic and not necessarily for better when things aren't right that has plagued our footy Club :banghead.
Asked if he were concerned director of football Greg Miller might reconsider his position if Casey lost the presidency, Wilson said: "I think he's done a good job, but if that's what he thinks, so be it."
As froars said, that comment is scary. We finally have someone who knows about modern AFL recruiting via trading and drafting after the stuffs of the past 20 and he doesn't care if he leaves. I know many people within the Club respect Ian Wilson but IMHO this is another illustration of the old guard having too much say and no idea! :help
-
Board rallies behind Clinton
10 September 2004
Herald Sun
Mark Robinson and Jon Pierik
THE Richmond board has dismissed claims it is fractured and ready to offload president Clinton Casey.
As Casey flew out of Melbourne for a four-week holiday, board members rallied behind him in a bid to ease unrest.
However, frustration remains.
A key club supporter yesterday called for Casey to resign, a request Casey fiercely rejected.
Rob Slade, president of the Tommy Hafey Club and a member of the President's coterie group said: "He needs to resign immediately and allow the new board to get on board."
Casey hit back. "He is just one voice among 27,000," he said. "We are going to a meeting in December where the members can have their say."
Casey also rejected claims, made on Tuesday, that at least five members of his board were not aligned with him.
Yesterday, those members were emphatic the board was united and ready to meet head-on challengers Charles Macek and Brendan Schwab and their nine-man ticket in December.
One director, Rob Turner, who had a meeting with Schwab this week in a bid to avert an election, has committed himself to Casey.
John Matthies, Anthony Mithen, Gary Cameron, Don Lord, Gary March and Alan Nicklos, who is overseas, joined Turner in backing Casey.
Lord said yesterday: "Of all the current board members, and the people on the alternative ticket, Clinton is definitely the one to lead the club.
"There are no fractures within the club.
"There's always differences of opinions, that's healthy, but I know as a fact we are united, that whatever differences we had weren't significant enough to cause any problems.
"This is coming out of the other camp, probably stemming from the meeting Rob Turner had with Brendan Schwab."
Turner yesterday refused to comment on the meeting or claims he was at odds with Casey.
"The board is totally united in its efforts to beat this opposition ticket," Turner said.
"I'm fully supportive of our board. At this stage our ticket is led by Clinton, we're moving forward with Clinton, he's the president of the footy club."
Cameron was also emphatic. Asked if he supported Casey, he said: "Absolutely."
Their support came after Slade yesterday attacked Casey and demanded he step aside.
"He has to resign now and save the club money and time by having to go a election," Slade said.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,10720278%255E19771,00.html
-
I tell you what, I will do a Pahloff if this group comes in and takes over the current board.
We've got two competing parties, now we've got coterie groups and a prehistoric administrator calling the shots.
If these guys put their own people in without going to the members in toto to see how they want the club to go into the future, i'll call for their heads.
If CAsey wants to stand, or Welsh, or Mickey Mouse, let them - but let the members decide the composition of the board.
This is where we got into trouble the last time, with Casey coming in unelected by the members, and this is where it's got us.
Do these people think the members are so stupid we can't make up our own minds who we want?
I respect Benny Gale's opinion, but isn't it up to me and everyone else to decide who we want?
These coterie groups contribute a lot towards the club - doesn't give them the right to dictate even if they are upset over what's happening. We all are and we all want a breath of fresh air coming into the club as Wilson wants. But let us pick the people ourselves.
-
Agree froars.
Time for all candidates to face the masses otherwise they have no true mandate to lead OUR Club.
-
I find all of this very funny
Real easy for people to throw cheaps shots.
Didnt see too many alternative ticket supporters at the Best and Fairest either, only seen Macek. Didnt see Slade or Mickey or Woosha, what happened to supporting your club?
As for Slade, he went to School with Clinton and would know him very well.
He might sell a few more horses now that he has his name in the media too now, Lee Freedman would be rubbing his hands $$$$$
Ian Wilson, well well, ""Ocktar"" I dont thing the club was in a very good state when you left either. Now you come out throwing cheap shots
Funny thing is about people with Creditentials. People say that Macek has great credientials ? Does he ? IOOF, Telstra ? Hey so did Ian Campbell >:(
-
Ian Wilson, I forgot about the Pitura mess during your reign.When Ian left the club, it was a mess, its amazing how people and media forget, Didnt right that did you Caroline. If Caroline Wilson had the club at heart, she wouldnt be trying to bring the club to its knees by using the media
Ian, go and join Macek cooking the snags at the local RSL please.
Just on Casey, you will find that Clinton has the support of the supporter groups.
The majority of people at the B &F supported Clinton.
Everyone makes mistakes and people can see that the process at present is the right one eg New Coach, Cutting Costs, New CEO etc.
All of this makes you support Clinton more. I will now !
-
We've reached rock bottom you say Ian...me thinks not. I think that may have been when I stood on the street corner rattling cans to Save Our Skins! And why were we rattling tins...cause you and your administration basically sent us broke in your stupid mine's bigger than yours fight with the Pies. I almost choked on my breakfast when reading your crap and why doesn't your darling daughter ever mention any of the shortcomings of yours or your cronies administrations.
Look at who we lost on your watch....Wood, Cloke, Raines, Taylor and look at the nuff, nuffs we got in return, Phillip Walsh, Craig Stewart...need I go on. The rot started setting in from about 1983....no players, no money, poohe clubrooms, social club etc.
Ian running a club's just a tad different than in your day, for a start they're $25 million businesses. There's also a little thing called the DRAFT...no more bullying and open cheque books, which knowing the way you operated is probably a good thing.
I agree with Clinton on one thing....let the MEMBERS decide. Is the alternative ticket too scared to go to the members? It would appear so and that's why they are getting increasingly desperate! Rob Slade was on SEN this morning spouting more of the same crap and offering nothing new.
If one more person says that the majority of members are in favour of the alternative I'll :scream.
Am I angry - YES!!!!!
-
Wilson said yesterday the Clinton Casey administration had presided over the darkest period in the club's history.
"The club's at rock bottom, the lowest ebb it's been in its history, and I'm just sick of watching it self-destruct," he said.
That's funny coming from you. Though, you'd know about destruction because you and your administration almost killed, terminated, destroyed our Club - when you left we were broke - broke you moron - go away. :banghead.
"Jack Dyer and Graeme Richmond would bloody well turn in their graves to see the pitiful state of the bloody joint now.
Yes Jack Dyer would be. No disrepsect for Graeme Richmond as he was a great man for our Club, but he along Ian Wilson sent us broke.
"Hey, the results are on the board. Read the papers every bloody week: we've won the wooden spoon and we're going to lose $2.5million.
Yes and when you were in power we lost over $1 million one year - a worse result than what we face now - $1 million when your revenues are about 3-4 million. Go away a fool
Wilson, 70, was Richmond president from 1974-85, a term that produced two premierships from five top-four finishes.
Wonderful selective journalism - he sent us to he wall. He presided over reconrd losses in the last 3 years of his reign
"Twenty years ago, we were the most respected and feared club in the league. Now we're the easy beats."
Let me see 20 years ago - was 1984 - we were a joke.
-
We've reached rock bottom you say Ian...me thinks not. I think that may have been when I stood on the street corner rattling cans to Save Our Skins! And why were we rattling tins...cause you and your administration basically sent us broke in your stupid mine's bigger than yours fight with the Pies. I almost choked on my breakfast when reading your crap and why doesn't your darling daughter ever mention any of the shortcomings of yours or your cronies administrations.
Look at who we lost on your watch....Wood, Cloke, Raines, Taylor and look at the nuff, nuffs we got in return, Phillip Walsh, Craig Stewart...need I go on. The rot started setting in from about 1983....no players, no money, poohe clubrooms, social club etc.
Ian running a club's just a tad different than in your day, for a start they're $25 million businesses. There's also a little thing called the DRAFT...no more bullying and open cheque books, which knowing the way you operated is probably a good thing.
I agree with Clinton on one thing....let the MEMBERS decide. Is the alternative ticket too scared to go to the members? It would appear so and that's why they are getting increasingly desperate! Rob Slade was on SEN this morning spouting more of the same crap and offering nothing new.
If one more person says that the majority of members are in favour of the alternative I'll :scream.
Am I angry - YES!!!!!
Excellent post bg25.
100% spot on - agree 300%
And like you I am very very angry. >:(
-
I am totally amazed.
Anyone with HALF a BRAIN would know that he Wilson stuffed the joint. FACT not Fiction ! Ian Wilson was the person who bought PREMIERSHIPS $$$$$$$ and ran the club into the ground.
Question is why is there so many brain dead people around :banghead
-
:banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead
I reckon that if I bang my head on this wall for long enough that, pretty soon, I'll be totally numb to the pain. :banghead :banghead
Why should any of us become members? >:( >:( >:( >:( What does it give us? Apart from burning a dirty great hole in our pockets, it gives us nothing.
In terms of it saving me money, as a 17 game, reserve seat member, I’d be better off just paying at the gate each week.
In terms of access to Grand Final tickets, it guarantees nothing.
In terms of ensuring that the history and traditions of the Club are maintained, it gives me nothing. Not when we have dictators at AFL headquarters telling us how to run our Club, in areas that should have nothing to do with them.
And in terms of giving me a say in how the Club is run, again, it gives me nothing. :banghead :banghead :banghead
Not while people like Schwab, Macek and Slade are running around making up our minds for us.
Well, I tell you what. How about all us members forget membership and let all you people with money support RFC financially, on behalf of us members, seeing as you seem to be the only ones who regularly get to have a say.
No more you morons. I want my say, coz me and every other Richmond member deserves to have their say.
If in fact members don’t want Casey as President then we can vote him and all the other Directors out at the next AGM, because they have all put themselves up for re-election.
We don’t need past players, presidents, coterie members and anyone else telling us what we want. We know what we want. We want our say and we don’t want others saying it for us.
What is the problem here? The entire Board has put itself up for re-election this AGM, we can all have our say then. Why do we have minority groups having their say on behalf of the majority? Who and what gives them the right to speak for all members?
Why won’t Macek, Schwab and any others put themselves up for election? Because they know they won’t get elected?
-
Great post Tiger Spirit :thumbsup
-
:thumbsup Jackstar.
Well done to everyone on this thread. We all have the interests of RFC at heart, but we need decisions to be made for the long-term, best interests of RFC, not for just today and not just to ease the pressure.
As well meaning as Macek, Schwab, Slade and Wilson might think they are, they are, in actual fact, the very reason why our footy club is in the position it is in.
Because, for years, the short-sighted decision-making by minority groups has spoken for the majority. And their decisions have been made high on emotion and low on commonsense and logic. And there are many examples on this thread that highlight that point.
We’re all upset at where we are at the moment, but it is not Casey that is the problem with this footy club. When Danny was coach he was the problem. Now that he is not there, Casey is the problem. All these people want is someone to blame.
What they don’t see is that they are to blame because of how short-sighted decisions continue to be made.
And us members are at fault if we continue to let it happen.
There is absolutely no need for any rival tickets or calls for the President's head, because there is an election coming up and we can all decide the fate of Directors at that time.
To make any calls now is to go down the same track we have for way too long. If that happens we can be assured that the trend will continue.
Please – wake up RFC members.
-
This is something of a novelty, TWO great posts in a row Tiger Spirit :thumbsup :thumbsup
No wonder this is the leading Tiger forum on the internet ;)
-
I agree with what you are saying Spirit, in terms of letting the members decide. But IMO most members would not know who the best candidate for the board would be. Alot of current members wouldn't even know who is presently on the board and what their areas of expertise are.
If a spill of the board was to occur and the members were to elect the candidates at the AGM, I would have great doubts that the best people would be elected. The election would be based on popularity of the candidate and based on a pamphlet in the mail which would consist of re-hashed spindoctoring about how this person is passionate about the club and how he will ressurect the club.
All I'm saying is alot of the members would not be informed enough to make the right decision as to who and what mix of people should be on the board. Members are basically football and Richmond supporters, not shareholders and do not take an active and vested interest in the financial side of the club. It could end up where the majority of the board are made up of former players and media people as the members would have a certain connection with them.
At the end of the day, I beleive a successful president and board is brought along by trial and error. A board and a president should be given enough time to succeed and if they do, they remain. If they don't they are then replaced with a viable new board made up of the right mix of well credentialled people, and they are then given enough time to succeed.
-
The members aren't fools Harry - but are being treated like they are by saying we wouldn't know one bloke from the other.
In this new world of technology, newspapers, radio talkback, great internet sites like this, they should be able to formulate their own views on the more than enough information floating around.
And the RFC has its own web site, access to email, post and every other form of communication going for it. How hard is it to put info on the board on every candidate.
We're all voting in a federal election soon - how many constituents really know who they're voting for? Not many i'm thinking, but democracy still takes place and they get to have their say.
-
Anyone know the dates that nominations for the board election start and what's the last date they can be accepted?
-
The members aren't fools Harry - but are being treated like they are by saying we wouldn't know one bloke from the other.
In this new world of technology, newspapers, radio talkback, great internet sites like this, they should be able to formulate their own views on the more than enough information floating around.
And the RFC has its own web site, access to email, post and every other form of communication going for it. How hard is it to put info on the board on every candidate.
We're all voting in a federal election soon - how many constituents really know who they're voting for? Not many i'm thinking, but democracy still takes place and they get to have their say.
I agree Froars, but anything can be written up in the papers and on the net. Just today there were 2 articles - one saying the current board supports Casey and the other saying they were against him. Who do you beleive ? Who do you think the RFC website will promote ? The RFC website should be the last place you should gain information from. All I'm saying is every media outlet and website has its own agenda. You still won't make an informed decision if you gathered you information from these sources. Propoganda is the strongest tool in every power struggle.
-
Yep, but the people who don't know will either vote for one faction or the other.
And the informed - like us lol - will make the good judgment votes. Not because the rest of the supporters are dumb or anything, just because that's usually how it goes in any election. The swinging voters usually decide an election, based upon no loyalties and weighing up the facts properly.
-
And Clinton will get support from some supporters who like the fact that a new coach has been appointed, new CEO, etc.
I don't know if people like the President's men (aka high flyers and faceless men) would have such an influence on supporters saying you should vote one way or the other. I - and i'm sure there's many others - mistrust these kinds of people. They generally have agendas of their own and people will be on guard. I think if Miller though came out and said something about what he thought, I think ppl would listen to him. Interesting times ahead.
-
I agree Froars, but anything can be written up in the papers and on the net. Just today there were 2 articles - one saying the current board supports Casey and the other saying they were against him. Who do you beleive ? Who do you think the RFC website will promote ? The RFC website should be the last place you should gain information from. All I'm saying is every media outlet and website has its own agenda. You still won't make an informed decision if you gathered you information from these sources. Propoganda is the strongest tool in every power struggle.
That’s exactly why I’m pushing for us members to support what is in the long-term best interests of the Club, HarryH. And a real and proper election is in the best interests of our Club and will allow us to take back control and stop these rebel rousers coming in and controlling things.
So let’s forget Casey, Schwab and all the people and personalities involved and think of the Richmond Football Club, first and foremost. That’s all we need to do here to right this ship. Put all that other stuff aside. It is all political based, biased and just plain propaganda.
So just think of what is best for the long-term future of our footy club. These people, whoever they are, don’t actually care for Richmond, even though they think they do and tell us they do, but all they really care about is what’s in it for them.
And us being sheep, have been following these trumped up, ego-maniacal sods, for years, as if they’re gonna come and save us. They're not. Let go of that fantasy, because it ain’t gonna happen. Never has.
By us continually going down this track, we are responsible for destroying the very soul of this footy Club.
-
I've seen TWO premierships in my lifetime while Ian Wilson was president. I've seen a wooden spoon under Casey.
It staggers me to read a lot of ppl posting abuse at a Tiger legend who brought us so much success as president. Some ppl have no respect for the club's history.
Making a case for supporting Casey is one thing, but abusing legends from our history is not the Richmond way.
Matty Knights and Benny Gale have also come out against Clinton Casey. I'd hate to see anyone posting abuse about them as well.
-
I am totally amazed.
Anyone with HALF a BRAIN would know that he Wilson stuffed the joint. FACT not Fiction ! Ian Wilson was the person who bought PREMIERSHIPS $$$$$$$ and ran the club into the ground.
Question is why is there so many brain dead people around :banghead
Someone that proudly posts that he went to school with Casey has no credibility on this topic.
If Tom Hafey, Rex Hunt, Michael Roach and Royce Hart come out against Casey, you'll abuse their place in the RFC history as well.
The facts of the matter are Wilson 2 premierships. Casey No premierships, wooden spoon and has lost just as much money.
And Ian Wilson has never owned a Bombers membership. You'll have a hard time proving Casey never owned one either.
-
I've seen TWO premierships in my lifetime while Ian Wilson was president. I've seen a wooden spoon under Casey.
So have I....but that doesn't mean he should be immune from the damage he did to our CLub, 1980. And he did plenty of damage!
It staggers me to read a lot of ppl posting abuse at a Tiger legend who brought us so much success as president. Some ppl have no respect for the club's history.
I have great respect for our history - I know our history and yes he while he was president we won 2 premierships.....
But history tells us that Ian Wilson and his board were the reason we had to have the SOS campaign. We were broke and let's not forget that part of history.
One of the saddest and blackest periods in our history.
Making a case for supporting Casey is one thing, but abusing legends from our history is not the Richmond way.
I don't think it is a case of abusing a "legend" but more pointing out that this mans opinion on the Club losing money is not worth much.
He shouldn't be critical when he did the same and has never really take responsiblity for it.
He may be "legend" but he is far from perfect.
-
Let’s all get our collective heads out of the sand here. We are being bogged down by personalities, who did what and who is and isn’t telling the truth. How can you tell anything any more?
If we want to get anywhere, let’s forget about these people and look at the bigger picture. Otherwise we might as well concede we’re going down the same track again. But this time, there won’t be so many of us left, because some of us are becoming numb to the regular upheaval that goes on at this Club and just don’t want to care any more.
So, for the sake of Richmond, forget about who is right and who isn’t, and think of the future of RFC, because the way this is headed, none of these people seem capable of uniting supporters and resolving the whole issue. So it is up to members to stand firm and demand the right to have our say.
Regardless of their policies, who they are and what they have done, I will support an election where members get to decide the course of action and future of this Club. And I’m totally against a minority having their say for the rest of us.
Don’t let’s get bogged down with small and petty issues and resort to splitting hairs. Please - look at the bigger picture.
-
with so many wise people associated with or around Richmond then why in god's name are we where we are today? ???
-
Ian Wilson was president when there was basically no rules, no drafting, spend what you want.
I have seen 5 Flags.
Since 1982, the club has been run into the ground.
Unfortunately people remember the good bits, it was Wilson who ran the joint into the ground trying to stick it up the pies in the early 1980,s
Also he was pathetic in his interview with KB this morning as well
Hey 1980 dont jump to conclusion mate, yes I did go to school with Clinton and know him ,didnt say I like him or are a friend, thus I a very objective on the matter.
If you ask me three weeks ago who I would vote for ,i would have been undecided. Since then we have bombarded with Dribble from the faceless men of the alternative ticket and unless they were hiding, only one turned up at the B&F, that was Macek. After talking to him, his next call in life is running the bingo at the local RSL. And yes basically I told him that as well. The alternative ticket is not a alternative. Go and speak to Macek, you will see what I mean, you think Caseys bad, ::)
As for the big picture, we are a football club, not a club that supports glory seekers who come out and make idiotic statements.
If I was in Caseys shoes, I wouldnt be showing the books to a bunch of losers either
At the end of the day, a 2m loss isnt the end of the world when you have a turnover in excess of 25m
.
-
We won a wooden spoon and never made the finals under Neville Crowe's presidency but he had to fix the mess that Wilson and the other 1980's presidents got us into. Wilson may be classed as a legend of the Club but the damage he did during the 80's was mindboggling. We were broke! I don't call that abusing him just stating a fact no matter how unpleasant it is to those who are still in awe of him. No different to stating facts about what's happened under Casey's regime. Anyone who says we are in a worse position now than in the 80's doesn't know what they are talking about.
with so many wise people associated with or around Richmond then why in god's name are we where we are today? ???
Amazing that isn't it PRR :bow.
-
Anyone know the dates that nominations for the board election start and what's the last date they can be accepted?
Depends when the AGM is froars. From the constitution Section 8.2.4: the election is held on the Friday before the AGM provided there's 2 working days between the election and AGM. From Section 8.2.3 (a): all nominations of members of the Board shall be in writing and signed by the candidate who shall be a member of the Club, and by two Ordinary Members of the Club, (other than Junior Members) and shall be delivered to the General Manager or Secretary not later than 8pm, on a day 21 days before the AGM.
-
Thanks MT - plenty of time for other contenders
-
Thanks MT - plenty of time for other contenders
Organising your diary froars lol ;D
-
I really don't think the RFC is ready for me lol
-
I really don't think the RFC is ready for me lol
You'd start 2 votes ahead of Jackstar ;D.
-
Dicker and Casey ignore stop signs
By Caroline Wilson
realfooty.theage.com.au
September 12, 2004
Rarely has an AFL finals series been forced to struggle quite so hard to compete with the off-field politics of the competition's cellar-dwellers.
And rarely has the solution seemed quite so clear-cut. In recent seasons, we have witnessed both Joseph Gutnick (2001) and John Elliott (2002) fight to remain at the helm of their respective football clubs when it was clear to most that they were finished as AFL club presidents.
The scenario in 2004 is that both Richmond and Hawthorn face remarkably similar circumstances and yet neither Clinton Casey at Tigerland nor Ian Dicker at Glenferrie Oval will accept the writing staring at them from the wall.
Clearly, both must go. Whatever their reasons for hanging on - and both probably believe they are better than any other potential candidate for the job - they are deluded. The truth is that while the vast majority of AFL coaches only leave when sacked or offered better positions elsewhere, club presidents become first intoxicated by and then addicted to their positions of power.
Michael Smith, who left West Coast at the end of 2002, and Graeme McMahon, who resigned as chairman of Essendon last year, are rare examples of leaders who publicly determined their own fate. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the football clubs over which they presided are among the most solid outfits in the competition.
Everyone knows that club presidents are not paid for their efforts and anyone versed at all in football politics knows that Dicker and Casey have spent countless hours beyond the call of duty trying to turn Hawthorn and Richmond into powerful and successful organisations.
...
Meanwhile, Casey, who is out of the country for a month, also appears deluded. Unlike Dicker, he never had a succession plan - Dicker's failed when Martin Jolly from the International Management Group was unable to take the presidency mantle - and Casey continues to say he will not walk away until the right replacement appears.
Now that a seemingly credible ticket has emerged, Casey will not consider it. Groups he claims are supporting him have publicly ridiculed him. His club will lose a reported $2.4 million this season and was dreadful on the field. Casey's five years at the helm have reaped one finals performance and a series of poor decisions. His board is more divided than Dicker's, although at least he appears to have put in place the Tigers' first choice as coach and a credible chief executive.
To that end, Casey, too, can still leave with his head relatively high.
Casey would never admit it but, like Dicker, he seems to have become, in his own mind, bigger than his club.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/09/11/1094789736879.html?oneclick=true
-
The Wilson family definitely want Casey gone now. It's becoming relentess!
If the alternative is as credible as some claim why are so many public faces that back it appear afraid of facing the members at a December election. If the majority of the 27,500 members feel the same way and want him gone then Casey will be no more. It's as simple as that.
-
I'm extremely happy for Caroline that for her the decision is clear-cut. Wish it was for me.
Also happy for her she gets her say, via her article.
You're spot on MT. What about the rest of us getting our say. We don't have a column so we need the board election.
As for her opening line implying annoyance that the board issue is making the finals series have to struggle to compete, why did she write this article then? So they have to struggle a bit harder? ???
-
I want Casey gone too (she says ducking for cover lol)
But I don't want the whole board having to stand down - my only problem is the leader of the board. Never liked him, never will - Bombers supporter and the buck has to stop with him for the finances. My other beef with him is his lack of showing up to face supporters after games and in the media. Only in bad times like this has he faced the media and that's just to save his own neck now. But I don't see why the rest have to contest the next election.
Casey should go and the automatic three who come up for re-elction this year. The rest should stay!
-
I asked this question on BigFooty and will put here, because i think it's important.
I would like to ask Schwab and Welsh a question on Macek. Do they know whether there were moves to get rid of Macek (or was he on the nose) when he was on the board before the Casey takeover? I wonder. Interesting he's on their ticket now if that was the case.
I do not know if this is FACT, but i heard rumblings way back then and it has stuck in my head and gives me great cause of grief as to if there is any cred. Can Schwab please come out and alleviate my concerns?
-
The question I pose is a legitimate one on Macek, and I know I heard the rumour – just don’t remember who told me – although I have an inkling. It’s stuck in my head, because I have met Macek on a number of occasions and always found him to be a nice man – so it shocked me at the time that others thought otherwise.
But I would like to know if they didn’t think he was a good board member based on personality clashes or his efforts while a director. Either doesn’t bode well, because if they are to form a new board, they have to work and get on well together IMO.
Do they hate Casey so much that they would see even Macek as a better option, or are they just doing it because like it or not, Macek has made an impact on the supporters.
Either option is unacceptable to me if this is the case. The idea is to find the best leader – not a better alternative to the worst option.
-
It would be nice if all this stuff could be sorted out amicably (very unRichmond-like I know), but the question is how?
I would really like to see Leon Daphne as president again, but Leon has ruled that out for his own personal reasons.
So, I’ll chuck in another option in Terry Grigg, the vice president at the time Leon resigned and was going to be president when Casey stepped in.
I better declare I know Griggy personally and is a friend (although I wonder if he sees this, I still will be lol). C’est la vie – because Terry knows I would never do anything to harm the RFC and would just have to accept I say this in the best interests of the club.
I backed him when he first tried out for the board, based on knowing him and knowing what a diehard Richmond supporter he was, working for the club during the Save Our Skins, president of the Ton Up group, and many many other things he has done unnoticed by supporters. And a successful businessman to boot.
His name hasn’t been brought up in these discussions, and I can’t vouch for all parties concerned, but I believe he got on very well with the current board, and was on friendly terms with members of the Schwab ticket.
Best of all, he was a hundred per cent successful in his duties as director, being in charge of membership, which in his tenure reached the highest membership figures going just short of the 30,000 mark (which I still believe is the highest amount, despite reports otherwise).
Just an option, and I hope people can see past my personal bias – I think my bias is outweighed by the respect he has around the club anyway.
I hate this infighting – this, to me, is a viable alternative to the current state of play.
The only thing is Griggy hasn’t thrown his hat in the ring – that’s up to him I guess, but I’d welcome some mediation in this.
-
Spud was asked whether Casey should go. He said he didn't want to get involved in politics. Only said Casey was very supportive of him. Spud then said the obvious that no club can be successful when there's disunity. Talked about locking all the parties in a room and them deciding to do what's in the best interests of the Club.
A nice idea but I think it's gone past that stage Spud. Too much pride and bitterness and too many egos involved now for a compromise to be produced. The temporary ceasefire was hard enough to get and now there's disagreement over that.
IMO the 1998 final round flogging to the Dees and then poor 1999 season when no promised changes were made made many Tiger fans fed up with the side and Club. If Sheedy had come on board at the end of 1999 his presence alone would have kept us around that 30,000 mark but once he said no that was enough heartache for many. IMO it wouldn't have mattered who the president was our membership numbers would have fallen. With Wallace, Miller and a good trade/draft period we have a good chance to reach and break the 30,000 mark independent of whoever the president is.
-
If the alternative is as credible as some claim why are so many public faces that back it appear afraid of facing the members at a December election. If the majority of the 27,500 members feel the same way and want him gone then Casey will be no more. It's as simple as that.
Exactly MT.
What are they afarid of losing?
The current board Casey and the rest of them have said they will face the members on December. The alternative appear to be trying everything to avoid it. Do they not turst us the members to make a decision that's in the best interest of the club. It appears not.
We have a right to decide
-
This is all still playing politics. Casey has gone away for a month when nothing much is happening. Presumely he'll be back just after the trade period. If we do well there he'll promote that in October. Then November will be spent talking about the kids we drafted and by early December before the proposed election and AGM we'll know which players are out of contract and who we can pick up in the PSD. Casey will be counting on the popularity of these choices to push his case on top of the plans in place. The alternative ticket would want Casey out as soon as possible so he doesn't get any credit for these decisions and will probably argue it's the work of Miller and Wallace anyway. They also appear concerned/afraid of their chances at an election given the chairman controls the proxies.
-
Just a bit of a side issue with regard to the membership figures.
As a Family Membership purchaser I can say that it used to count for 6 members (2 Ad + 4 Ch) but now only counts for 4 (2 + 2).
I think our numbers are comparable to the 30,000 because from memory the change occured in 2000.
Not knocking Terry, froars. The work done to bring the numbers up from 8000 to 30000 in only a couple of years was fantastic, and if it was his department he deserves accolades. Just trying to show that our numbers are still as good in real terms.
-
When was the 2 + 2 introduced, Fish? Didn't know it had, but not surprised - I watch my package get little benefits taken off it yearly as the price increases. But it is a good point. I still stand by Terry lol - even as a mediator between these parties he probably would be good even if he didn't stand.
-
I'm extremely happy for Caroline that for her the decision is clear-cut. Wish it was for me.
Also happy for her she gets her say, via her article.
You're spot on MT. What about the rest of us getting our say. We don't have a column so we need the board election.
That’s what I’m livid about too Fishfinger.
With all the distorted views of each party going around, how anyone can be expected to make a decision is beyond me. And that’s why I keep going on about the fact that we need to stop all these ego driven people from eroding our Club and not let rebel factions interfere with the rights of Richmond members to have their say. Who are they to make up our minds for us?
If they are the right people to lead the Club then let the members decide that. As others have said, what are they afraid of and why won’t they front the members?
I haven’t read Caro’s article and I have no intention of reading it, because I heard her on 3AW over the weekend and that was more than enough to know what her view on this is, if I didn’t already know.
Caro’s more than entitled to her opinion but, as you alluded to Fishfinger, so are we.
And, if indeed Casey or any other Director needs to go then let the members decide. Why does a decision need to be made by the back room boys, without the Members getting to have their say, yet again? That’s what I think a lot of us would like to know.
We’ve had faceless and nameless people in the background making decisions for who knows how long, getting us nowhere and we can let that sort of decision making continue or we can put a stop to it by ensuring that we get our say at an election.
I’d love to know how many times Richmond members have had the opportunity to vote over the last 20 years, because if it was any more than 2 or 3 times, I would be very surprised.
-
We won a wooden spoon and never made the finals under Neville Crowe's presidency but he had to fix the mess that Wilson and the other 1980's presidents got us into. Wilson may be classed as a legend of the Club but the damage he did during the 80's was mindboggling. We were broke! I don't call that abusing him just stating a fact no matter how unpleasant it is to those who are still in awe of him. No different to stating facts about what's happened under Casey's regime. Anyone who says we are in a worse position now than in the 80's doesn't know what they are talking about.
The posts I was reading had a lot to say about Wilson driving the club broke in the late 80s, but ommitted to mention that he also presided over the club when it won 2 premierships.
Wilson is a Richmond legend. Casey is not. The two cannot be compared in terms of what they've contributed to the club. 2 premierships VS one wooden spoon. I'd tolerate Casey's failures over the past 5 years if he'd contributed 2 premierships in the Punt Rd trophy cabinet.
If you want to make a case that Wilson was responsible for the mess of the late 80s, then all the more reason why Casey should be kicked out. Presidents left to indiscriminately spend money lead to SOS campaigns. Or are you going to argue that Casey is a sound financial manager? That would give me something to laugh about :)
-
I’d love to know how many times Richmond members have had the opportunity to vote over the last 20 years, because if it was any more than 2 or 3 times, I would be very surprised.
I was thinking about this yesterday after reading Caro's article because she made the comment about there now being "a credible alternative" and her implying that Casey should go and the others take over. Again this view that the members shouldn't get a say.
So how many times have we voted in the last 20 years?
There was an election in January of this year. The last time I remeber voting was back in 1994/5 - when Mal Brown stirred the pot and then challenged Leon Daphne. Before that? I can honestly say I don't remember.
-
I’d love to know how many times Richmond members have had the opportunity to vote over the last 20 years, because if it was any more than 2 or 3 times, I would be very surprised.
I was thinking about this yesterday after reading Caro's article because she made the comment about there now being "a credible alternative" and her implying that Casey should go and the others take over. Again this view that the members shouldn't get a say.
That’s why I didn’t bother with her article WP. If she thinks that there is a credible alternative then good luck to her.
What about the rest of us, or don’t we deserve a say?
So how many times have we voted in the last 20 years?
There was an election in January of this year. The last time I remeber voting was back in 1994/5 - when Mal Brown stirred the pot and then challenged Leon Daphne. Before that? I can honestly say I don't remember.
That's all I can remember too WP.
-
with so many wise people associated with or around Richmond then why in god's name are we where we are today? ???
Good question PRR. But why would "wise" people want to get themselves involved in the snake pit that seems to be the Richmond Boardroom?
Wise people would have better ways to spend their days than being back stabbed and having their authority diminished by influential background people.
Genuine Richmond people would be lost and swallowed up in all the politics and behind the scenes goings on to be able to make any effective contribution to the Club.
Anyone on the RFC Board would need some of these to keep themselves sane I reckon :banghead :banghead :banghead
Might sound harsh, but wouldn't surprise if it were true.
-
We won a wooden spoon and never made the finals under Neville Crowe's presidency but he had to fix the mess that Wilson and the other 1980's presidents got us into. Wilson may be classed as a legend of the Club but the damage he did during the 80's was mindboggling. We were broke! I don't call that abusing him just stating a fact no matter how unpleasant it is to those who are still in awe of him. No different to stating facts about what's happened under Casey's regime. Anyone who says we are in a worse position now than in the 80's doesn't know what they are talking about.
The posts I was reading had a lot to say about Wilson driving the club broke in the late 80s, but ommitted to mention that he also presided over the club when it won 2 premierships.
Wilson is a Richmond legend. Casey is not. The two cannot be compared in terms of what they've contributed to the club. 2 premierships VS one wooden spoon. I'd tolerate Casey's failures over the past 5 years if he'd contributed 2 premierships in the Punt Rd trophy cabinet.
If you want to make a case that Wilson was responsible for the mess of the late 80s, then all the more reason why Casey should be kicked out. Presidents left to indiscriminately spend money lead to SOS campaigns. Or are you going to argue that Casey is a sound financial manager? That would give me something to laugh about :)
I did mention the 2 premierships along with his disasterous decision making although it's a bit unfair to compare team success initially between the two. Casey inherited a bottom 4 side and Club which no decent coach wanted to go near whereas Wilson inherited a team of superstars and reigning premiers coached by Hafey. Although it make look like it, I'm not defending Casey's record as after 5 years the legacy he inherited should have been corrected by now and if he understood where realistically we were at on-field we wouldn't have counted on team success to balance the books and subsequently we wouldn't have lost $3 million over the past 2 years. It's only taken a year like 2004 to wake the inner sanctum of the Club from it's state of delusionment.
One of the major problems we have had in the past is we as a Club don't adapt to changes in the footy landscape and continue to use outdated methods. Wilson failed when the league started to become semi-professional and player and transfer costs ballooned especially of those (even duds) poached from other Clubs. More recently we have repeated the poaching mistakes but not necessarily from a financial cost but mainly at the expense of developing our own young players from the draft.
The last sentence in my previous post was just stating that at the end of 1984 (when Wilson finished) we were on our kness financially. From memory ironically the true state of our books was not disclosed although I could be incorrect there. I just remember reading somewhere that was so but can't remember which year in the mid 80's it was. In 2004 we are presumably $600K in debt out of a total turnover of $25 million. We couldn't afford another large loss next year but right now our position is still comfortably managable if we put in place realistic budget forecasts.
As far as legends go - Dyer, Bartlett, Hart, Bourke, etc - are the only ones as far as I'm concerned. Hafey as a 4 time premiership coach is also one but which "legend" of a president let him go after one poor season! Sorry Wilson is no legend of mine and Casey is just another successor in the great line of failed presidents we've had over the past 24 years.
When it comes down to all that goes into presiding over a VFL/AFL footy club, yes Casey is a dud but so was Wilson and for that matter so were the ex-board members who now lead the alternative ticket. Hence my dilemma come election time (if we even have an election).
-
As much as I don't want Casey around either due to his failed record, at least now I see positive change occurring. It's taken a year of major stupidity and failure to do it - a wooden spoon as well as putting heaps of $$$ into a footy department that blind freddy could see would fail again big time in the hope success would come out of thin air - but nevertheless the Club is now moving forward.
You can see that MT, but I wonder why the rebel ticket doesn’t, even though they agree with some of the key changes you’ve outlined.
As for current and future plans:
- Not caving in to outside pressure and sacking the coach unlike previous admins. Short term agony for long term benefit (ie. getting Wallace). I know many disagree with me in keeping on Danny.
- The appointments of Wright along with Wallace to go with Miller.
- The beginnings of a total clean out of our list and finally the Club understanding the merits of drafting youth.
- Our TTP will be reduced from 100% to 97% and ridiculous $$$ contracts should become a thing of the past.
- Recognition that's we've got a big job to fix us up and it's going to take time.
- Wright mentioned on club snorner that we'll be now following realistic and achievable budgets. We won't be relying on and budgeting for good gate receipt numbers and a good on-field performance to balance the books as we've done in the past.
- AFL acceptance of our 2005 and beyond business plan.
I don’t disagree with your point about Danny MT, because I thought we had to take that hard road before we could ever hope to get a coach such as Wallace. And I think it has now paid off.
So I wonder if all these people in the background and those coming forward now have got their noses out of joint because Casey wouldn’t and won’t succumb to their demands like others before him have? And instead of doing things the “Richmond way” he’s chosen to go another way.
No doubt these background, influential people would have been calling for Danny’s head any time in the last two to three years and, in seasons gone by, he would have gone. But the Board never gave in to any of these demands, if there were any. And good on them for stopping the rot, if that is the case.
Would be interesting to know what really goes on sometimes.
And I wonder too what other areas he would have done things his own way that they didn’t agree with, but have now paid off. Even though some things didn’t work out, you would have to think that for every risk that doesn’t pay off, there would be others that will and have. I would prefer that to just plain going nowhere, like what happened with other administrations. Not everyone will agree with that I know, it’s just my view.
-
No doubt these background, influential people would have been calling for Danny’s head any time in the last two to three years and, in seasons gone by, he would have gone. But the Board never gave in to any of these demands, if there were any. And good on them for stopping the rot, if that is the case.
Spot on TS. History shows this is how these backroom people operate. We were up to our 4th coach in 5 years under the previous admin and were averaging a new coach every second year for 20 years. The rot has finally stopped.
-
with so many wise people associated with or around Richmond then why in god's name are we where we are today? ???
Good question PRR. But why would "wise" people want to get themselves involved in the snake pit that seems to be the Richmond Boardroom?
Wise people would have better ways to spend their days than being back stabbed and having their authority diminished by influential background people.
Genuine Richmond people would be lost and swallowed up in all the politics and behind the scenes goings on to be able to make any effective contribution to the Club.
Anyone on the RFC Board would need some of these to keep themselves sane I reckon :banghead :banghead :banghead
Might sound harsh, but wouldn't surprise if it were true.
Cant argue with that TS. You're spot on. And here lies the real problem with the RFC. There are so many Richmond people out there with outstanding qualifications to be on our board. Former players that wont go anywhere near the club. And corporate heavyweights that dont want to get involved in the mess, or claim to not have the time.
But dont go so easy on them TS. Because these guys are motballs. If they put their hand up, the members would vote for them with their feet. People like Rex Hunt, or Michael Green who is a premiership ruckman and Melb's most successful barrister.
Until these kind of ppl stick their neck out for the club, the best we get is a board that can do no worse, and recycled boardmembers that are open to argument for not having done that well either.
-
Cant argue with that TS. You're spot on. And here lies the real problem with the RFC. There are so many Richmond people out there with outstanding qualifications to be on our board. Former players that wont go anywhere near the club. And corporate heavyweights that dont want to get involved in the mess, or claim to not have the time.
But dont go so easy on them TS. Because these guys are motballs. If they put their hand up, the members would vote for them with their feet. People like Rex Hunt, or Michael Green who is a premiership ruckman and Melb's most successful barrister.
Until these kind of ppl stick their neck out for the club, the best we get is a board that can do no worse, and recycled boardmembers that are open to argument for not having done that well either.
They probably understand better than us the politics that goes on at the Club 1980 and, as much as we’d like these genuine Richmond people to nominate for the Board, I just don’t think they will while things happen the way they do.
So that’s where RFC members have to wake up to how things work behind the scenes to undermine the Club and step in and stop that sort of thing from happening.
It seems that the current Board may be doing its bit, by not caving into this ticket and handing over control to them, and nor are they caving in to any people in the background. Anybody who wants to be on the Board needs to earn and deserve that right, by going through the correct channels and it’s up to the members, when we get that opportunity, to ensure that happens.
I agree with you, 1980, that if these Richmond people nominated they would get on the Board and if there were enough of them to nominate independently then we might finally get somewhere. So if they won't nominate now, then it's up to the current Board and Members to change the way decisions have been made at this footy club.
Any genuine Richmond person would nominate for the Board, rather than form a ticket, because that will only achieve further division within the Club. We want genuine leaders who can unite and bring people together. Instead, we get people forming tickets, faceless people in the background demanding decisions be made and all this has served to do is disenfranchise members, supporters and past greats.
These people on tickets do nothing more than stroke their own egos. Not only that, they lack vision and have nothing of real value to contribute to the Club, otherwise they couldn’t possibly see the need to go down this track.
-
You're spot on 1980 and top post TS.
I'd guess the only way we as members can change this situation is to demand we have our say instead of the background people. And the only time we get a say is when there's an election where all of us can hold both the incumbants and challengers to account. Maybe if these genuine and talented Richmond people knew that to get on the board all they needed to do was to present themselves and ideas before the whole membership in a civilised and stable manner instead of needing to play politics and begging for approval of the background idiots, they may be more willing to put themselves up for positions in the future.
-
Casey goes sailing on as plot thickens at Richmond
Patrick Smith
The Australian
September 14, 2004
RICHMOND president Clinton Casey is on holiday. He is in Cairo and plans a trip down the Nile. He may find himself without a paddle.
The board he left behind is not anywhere near as solid as he previously believed. Casey has been trusting to the point of naivety. He thought it best that he run to the December elections with an unchanged board to show solidity and stability. He now knows that this has been an unwise strategy.
He now wants board members Rob Turner and John Matthies to step down immediately. Casey has simply lost confidence in them and fears they are plotting directly to overthrow him. For the sake of unity he believes he has no other choice but to demand their resignations.
Casey told The Australian that Turner had been creeping in the dark to negotiate with the rival ticket led by Charles Macek and Brendan Schwab. Indeed, Turner met Schwab early last week and the football community was driven by rumours that a board challenge from within would topple Casey at last Tuesday's meeting of directors.
Casey said he believed Turner thought he might become president-elect of the Schwab ticket, but was unaware that Macek had been recruited to head Schwab's team. Turner might find he is not a member of the incumbent board or its rival.
Of both Matthies and Turner, Casey said he thought neither brought anything to the table. Casey has previously asked Turner to step down but he has resisted. Not a lot is known about Matthies except that he should spend some time with his fellow board member and broadcaster Anthony Mithen and learn how the media work.
Matthies apparently believes AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou calls members of the media into his office and instructs them about what to write.
After Demetriou's week from hell, how must the AFL boss wish that was right. It isn't, of course, and it is a major concern that a member of a football board can hold such ill-conceived and fanciful theories. You wonder what other bizarre conspiracies keep him awake at night.
If Matthies took time out to think, he would realise the only body more criticised and reviled than the AFL is that of The Elephant Man.
Casey is working to restructure his board and plans to announce a new addition to his team as early as next week. Casey said the person to be appointed to the board had a superior financial background.
That will help the Tigers. Casey said the loss this year has been reassessed and will fall somewhere between $1.9 million to $2.1m. Casey's new business plan, which has the support of the AFL, will have the club return to profit within two years. A new coterie group organised around football director Greg Miller will deliver $250,000 next year.
The battle at Richmond is an odd one. Casey's board has under-performed, but has still been able to appoint Terry Wallace as coach for next year, appoint the well-credentialled Steve Wright as chief executive and its new financial direction is being closely monitored and approved by the financial gurus at AFL headquarters.
Spending on the football department has been prolific and profligate. That will be reined in next season and plans to nab a talented but expensive player will need to be prudent. The Tigers will get their talent infusion through two early draft picks.
Among the challengers are four men who have been on Tigers boards before. Schwab and Peter Welsh worked under Casey until earlier this year when they said time restraints meant they had to resign. Michael Humphris served on the Tigers board from 1986-93 when the club was broke and never finished higher than 10th.
Macek worked under president Leon Daphne and attempted to win the presidency when Daphne stood down. Under Daphne's presidency from 1993-99 the club went through three coaches - John Northey, Robert Walls and Jeff Gieschen. Danny Frawley took over in 2000. In Daphne and Macek's last three years the club finished 13th, ninth and 12th.
Macek, Humphris, Welsh and Schwab hardly come from the Tigers' glory days.
There is no doubt that Demetriou believes the nucleus of the Casey board has the nous and experience to steer the Tigers to better times. He said so publicly two weeks ago.
Certainly Casey has a better understanding of what is required to make a football club work in Melbourne. He has spent time as acting chief executive and sought the best men available to fill the coaching and CEO positions. He is about to strengthen his board.
For all that he is either a brave man or a naive one to take a holiday two months away from an election. The plot and plotters thicken.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10755763%255E12270,00.html
-
The battle lines are now definitely being drawn. Caroline Wilson vs Patrick Smith lol.
-
Two opinionated people who should be posting on a certain web site, they would find it fun there. ::)
On Patrick, he is the only negative to KB show on SEN.
He bags everyone , he should look at himself first !
As for Caroline, get a life please.
-
That will help the Tigers. Casey said the loss this year has been reassessed and will fall somewhere between $1.9 million to $2.1m. Casey's new business plan, which has the support of the AFL, will have the club return to profit within two years. A new coterie group organised around football director Greg Miller will deliver $250,000 next year.
I know a loss is not a good result - but this if true, is a good result when people have going on about $2.5 - $3 million/
The battle at Richmond is an odd one. Casey's board has under-performed, but has still been able to appoint Terry Wallace as coach for next year, appoint the well-credentialled Steve Wright as chief executive and its new financial direction is being closely monitored and approved by the financial gurus at AFL headquarters.
Odd - good word Patrick (cannot believe I jsut praised Patrick ;D). Seriously, having the backing of the AFL is very important IMO. If this plan is that good then anyone thinking of coming in would be very very foolish to ignore it or change it.
Among the challengers are four men who have been on Tigers boards before. Schwab and Peter Welsh worked under Casey until earlier this year when they said time restraints meant they had to resign. Michael Humphris served on the Tigers board from 1986-93 when the club was broke and never finished higher than 10th.
Macek worked under president Leon Daphne and attempted to win the presidency when Daphne stood down. Under Daphne's presidency from 1993-99 the club went through three coaches - John Northey, Robert Walls and Jeff Gieschen. Danny Frawley took over in 2000. In Daphne and Macek's last three years the club finished 13th, ninth and 12th.
Macek, Humphris, Welsh and Schwab hardly come from the Tigers' glory days.
Hmmm..... has Patrick been reading OER? I know a number of us have been saying the same things for the last few months :thumbsup
-
LMAOOOO@Casey getting the nod from Patrick Smith. Thats got to be the kiss of death. Or did you buy Patrick a juice bar Clinton?
The facts remian the same. Daphne administration brought back financial stability to the club. Casey undid all the good work on the financial side of things and took the club back to the days of the late 80s when it was losing money every year.
Old people dont sponser footy clubs Clinton, and running old people's homes doesnt bring corporate sponsers either. Step aside.
-
Richmond rebels deliver ultimatum to board
realfooty.theage.com.au
September 29, 2004
The rebel Richmond Football Club ticket will force an extraordinary general meeting unless every director gives a commitment within three weeks to resign.
The rebels, led by alternative president Charles Macek and organised by former director Brendan Schwab, yesterday issued a letter of demand to the incumbent board.
It wants a written commitment from all directors within 21 days that they will resign on the date of a December general meeting, allowing a full board election, otherwise the rebel ticket will collect signatures to force an extraordinary general meeting.
"If the Richmond Football Club is forced to hold an extraordinary general meeting, it will be entirely due to the failure of the current board to honour its commitment to the Richmond members," a statement said.
Schwab said: "Should it be necessary to put that petition in place, we would have no problem in doing so."
Macek said: "The members of the Richmond Football Club have every right to expect that these public commitments will be honoured in full.
"It is extremely unfortunate that previous public commitments, including access to all RFC financial and commercial arrangements, have not been honoured by the current board."
http://realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/09/28/1096137237015.html?oneclick=true
-
:sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep
Will someone wake me up when it's over :banghead
-
Bloody Beautifully said woman :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow
and so colorful too.
-
Like spoilt kiddies that can't get their own way. Mummy he made me do it so it's his fault ::). And we have to make a choice b/w them and the current board :help. Can we scrap the board at the RFC ;). More trouble than its worth :banghead.
--------------------
13. DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The office of a member of the Board shall be ipso facto vacated:
(g) If the Members by Ordinary Resolution at either an Annual General Meeting or Extraordinary General Meeting vote to disqualify a member of the Board, even though the member's term has not expired. The Members may then at any such meeting vote to appoint another party to the office of member of the Board.
--------------
So will the resolution in the petition ask members to disqualify all current 9 members and appoint the alternative 9 in its place ??? Great choice ::).
The latest date for electoral nominations is 21 days before the AGM. Now if the supposed AGM election is held in the 2nd week of December then any nominating member would have until say the 3rd week of November to nominate. Why is the alternative expecting an answer a whole month earlier? More political manoeuvring ??? This ultimatum would mean a EGM would be held within 42 days.
This is getting very ugly :-\.
-
just when things are starting to get back on track ::)
Its all getting too personal.
The alternative ticket are a disgrace.
-
I think this is good. All they are requesting is that the current board members resign, so that a FULL election can take place - ie letting the members decide who should be on the board. There's nothing wrong with that as it lets us decide.
-
Macek said: "The members of the Richmond Football Club have every right to expect that these public commitments will be honoured in full.
"It is extremely unfortunate that previous public commitments, including access to all RFC financial and commercial arrangements, have not been honoured by the current board."
http://realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/09/28/1096137237015.html?oneclick=true
Struth Charles don't let the facts get in the way of a good statement ::)
Your group were told they could have access to the books if you signed an confidentiality agreement - now considering that some of the things you wanted to see included "commercial agreements" (your words not mine see above) so you should be required to sign an agreement.
If I had a commercial arrangement with the RFC (eg a sponsorship agreement) I wouldn't want every man and his dog seeing what the contract says. Get real.
And as for.. "The members of the Richmond Football Club have every right to expect that these public commitments will be honoured in full." Does that include your groups commitment not to force an EGM - or did that have conditions on it that we weren't made aware of back in July.
The alternative ticket are a disgrace.
You forgot JOKE they are a JOKE and a disgrace.
Why are these people so afraid to face the members?
I think this is good. All they are requesting is that the current board members resign, so that a FULL election can take place - ie letting the members decide who should be on the board. There's nothing wrong with that as it lets us decide.
HarryH I hope you are right - but I think you will find that the alternatives don't want to face an election
-
"It wants a written commitment from all directors within 21 days that they will resign on the date of a December general meeting, allowing a full board election, otherwise the rebel ticket will collect signatures to force an extraordinary general meeting".
My reading of this is that they are after a full election in December. Something we've been crying out for.
-
We have three directors up for election every year Harry, it's not a new phenomena. Same this year, they can challenge the three directors standing down. I don't see the need for a full board election.
-
Realistically, the alternative ticket couldn't expect that the Directors will do what they ask?
So they are willing to cost the Club extra money to do what they could do via the AGM. And like froars said yesterday, if they actually had half an idea of what they were doing, they could have themselves well placed if they had stayed on the Board.
Nuff nuffs who couldn't organise a drunken pub brawl on a Friday night.
-
just when things are starting to get back on track ::)
Back on track? Have you forgotten about the wooden spoon and $2m+ loss?
Oh, you must mean the signing of Terry Wallace. A coach alone does not maketh the club.
-
Basically, the club needs stability at this time, not instability with people who've had a chance before trying to keep this club down where they don't belong by infighting. Here is their big chance to replace three of the current directors with three of theirs. They can nominate as many as they like - the more the merrier - but we don't need this crap. Have they seen what Don Scott's doing at Hawthorn - we don't want to become a joke like they are.
-
Macek said: "The members of the Richmond Football Club have every right to expect that these public commitments will be honoured in full.
"It is extremely unfortunate that previous public commitments, including access to all RFC financial and commercial arrangements, have not been honoured by the current board."
http://realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/09/28/1096137237015.html?oneclick=true
Struth Charles don't let the facts get in the way of a good statement ::)
Your group were told they could have access to the books if you signed an confidentiality agreement - now considering that some of the things you wanted to see included "commercial agreements" (your words not mine see above) so you should be required to sign an agreement.
If I had a commercial arrangement with the RFC (eg a sponsorship agreement) I wouldn't want every man and his dog seeing what the contract says. Get real.
And as for.. "The members of the Richmond Football Club have every right to expect that these public commitments will be honoured in full." Does that include your groups commitment not to force an EGM - or did that have conditions on it that we weren't made aware of back in July.
The alternative ticket are a disgrace.
You forgot JOKE they are a JOKE and a disgrace.
Why are these people so afraid to face the members?
I think this is good. All they are requesting is that the current board members resign, so that a FULL election can take place - ie letting the members decide who should be on the board. There's nothing wrong with that as it lets us decide.
HarryH I hope you are right - but I think you will find that the alternatives don't want to face an election
Does the current board also have to sign a confidentiality agreement, because most them havent seen the books either. Only two of them have in fact. Casey and the finance director.
Bring on the election!!!
-
Why have an election may I ask ?
Will cost the club $60,000 plus for what ?
What totally amazes me that people from this site and other sites support the alternative ticket who they havent met and is made up of Ex-Board members anyway, well the three major players are anyway eg Mickey Mouse, Woosha and Macek, Oh forgot about Humpty Dumpty (Humphris )
I have spoken to Macek and if he is to President , god help the RFC.
Should be collecting the Pension for centrelink or cooking snags down the RSL, fair dinkum MACEK. as for Mickey Mouse and Woosha, get a life and move on . Dont get me wrong. I am all for change but the right change, not people who have been recyled and personal issues with accepting other people.
At the end of the day, the CEO runs the club, and the club coaches the Club. The footy operations person( Miller ) will take care of most other matters so all these people with big egos wanting to stand for the board, go away and play marbles elsewhere and get a life please. I am one supporter who is sick and tired of reading crap about board members etc.
How many kicks or handballs did the board members get last year ? Enough said
-
Schwab was on SEN:
Apart from repeating things he's said before and about wanting every director to resign within 21 day:
As one of the criticisms of the current admin Schwab said coming last we should have the full benefits of draft but don't as we aren't able to use the PSD pick to max due to finances. Conveniently forgot that if Otto leaves we'll have $300-400K extra to use on picking up an out of contract player.
Said if he was in charge now he would pay Ottens "market worth" :gobdrop. Clearly he hasn't learnt a thing from the time he was part of boards that re-signed Daffy, Knights, Richo, Cambo, Holland and Gas to high $ and long term contracts. That's scary! :banghead
KB said if you were in chrage would you be able to stop Otto from leaving. Schwab didn't give a direct answer and went on about having a 3-5 plan.
-
I thought people on here wanted an election ?
I'm with 1980 - Bring on the election.
Schwab is wrong about the Otto comment, but he like Casey, Macek, and others should face the members and let them decide who they want to represent the RFC.
Time to elect the entire board and put this crap to rest.
-
Does the current board also have to sign a confidentiality agreement, because most them havent seen the books either. Only two of them have in fact. Casey and the finance director.
Bring on the election!!!
Well fancy meeting you here 1980 ;D
Which books are we talking about? The current years ones (2004) or the last lot of accounts.
-
On the basis of what should we have any faith in the alternative ticket?
They come across like a bunch of desperado politicians trying to win votes. But the only way they can do that is to discredit the incumbents and give no indication they have any plans for the future.
Give us something that says we should put our faith in them and I’ll start to believe they are a credible alternative.
To now, all they have done is show themselves to have no idea of what they are doing. And the way they have gone about this clearly shows that they have no vision, direction, or nous to lead this or any Club.
We have Schwab, who was their “leader” for 5 minutes, but it turns out that he was no leader. :o Well, there’s a surprise. So now we have Macek. Then there was speculation that Turner was going to be their new leader. What’s going on with them that they can’t find someone wants to lead and knows how to lead?
They expect people to have confidence in them when they can’t even organise themselves. Why would we want them? Where’s the proof they have half a clue?
I'm all for an election, but not in the way terms are dictated by those who have no idea.
-
Schwab has little chance of getting in.
100 active supporters who post on web sites isnt going to get him over the line.
Whats a waste of $60,000 when the clubs loses 2m .
Dont forget that this club has been in serious trouble well before the current board were there.
Schwab, Welsh and Humphris have all been part of decisions in the past.DONT FORGET !
Interesting note that at the B & F recently, only seen Macek there !
-
Said if he was in charge now he would pay Ottens "market worth". Clearly he hasn't learnt a thing from the time he was part of boards that re-signed Daffy, Knights, Richo, Cambo, Holland and Gas to high $ and long term contracts. That's scary! :banghead
Rightee "o" then - ::) :o ::)
KB said if you were in chrage would you be able to stop Otto from leaving. Schwab didn't give a direct answer and went on about having a 3-5 plan.
Did he give any indication what the plan was MT?
I thought people on here wanted an election ?
I am happy to have an election HarryH but I want to be able to vote for who I want - not tickets that contain a variety of "nuff nuffs" and cartoon characters
I am one supporter who is sick and tired of reading crap about board members etc.
Ditto Jack - I am sick to death of the ego maniacs.
I'm all for an election, but not in the way terms are dictated by those who have no idea.
I am with you on that one TS :thumbsup
-
Why have an election may I ask ?
Will cost the club $60,000 plus for what ?
What totally amazes me that people from this site and other sites support the alternative ticket who they havent met and is made up of Ex-Board members anyway, well the three major players are anyway eg Mickey Mouse, Woosha and Macek, Oh forgot about Humpty Dumpty (Humphris )
I have spoken to Macek and if he is to President , god help the RFC.
Should be collecting the Pension for centrelink or cooking snags down the RSL, fair dinkum MACEK. as for Mickey Mouse and Woosha, get a life and move on . Dont get me wrong. I am all for change but the right change, not people who have been recyled and personal issues with accepting other people.
At the end of the day, the CEO runs the club, and the club coaches the Club. The footy operations person( Miller ) will take care of most other matters so all these people with big egos wanting to stand for the board, go away and play marbles elsewhere and get a life please. I am one supporter who is sick and tired of reading crap about board members etc.
How many kicks or handballs did the board members get last year ? Enough said
Come off it Jackstar. Macek was head of Invesco, one of the top financial service providers worldwide. And sold it for a truckload. One of the top professionals in the finance sector. He made money for a lot of ppl.
He's also on the board of the two top blue chips in the country: Wesfarmers & Telstra. Not that I'm a fan of the blue blood Melb club types, but he's the best placed Richmond person to bring in corporate sponserships, something Casey has proven to be abysmal at.
You cannot have a properly run business without a strong board. You cannot have a strong footy club without a strong board either. Look at the best Melb teams, and compare the way their boards are run to ours. Success starts from the top. If our board wasnt losing money, we'd be attracting more Nathan Browns to the club this year.
-
Yeah and Ian Campbell was head of NIKE. ::)
-
Macek a leader, your dreaming :banghead
-
Schwab, Welsh and Humphris have all been part of decisions in the past.DONT FORGET !
Jack - fair dinkum haven't you been reading the crap in the papers :o :banghead - it wasn't their fault and they ignore the past because they aren't big on taking repsonsibility but massive on pointing the finger - you shouldn't forget that ;D
-
Oh I have missed something here, sorry I have been on the moon for the past 10 years but didnt Schwab and Welsh resign from the board :banghead
-
Macek a leader, your dreaming :banghead
A corporate leader. Yes he is. Do your homework.
A footy club leader? That's yet to be determined. But what I do know already, is that Casey is not. A leader that loses the club money, takes it back on the same path the club was in in the 80s, losing money, not able to recruit top players. Yes, he's proven to be a crap leader.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone could do better than this clown
-
Oh I have missed something here, sorry I have been on the moon for the past 10 years but didnt Schwab and Welsh resign from the board :banghead
Yeah they did and you not what at the time of his resignation Mr Welsh said he didn't have time and there was nothing sinister in his decision - now he has plenty of time - yippee We're saved :banghead :gobdrop :help :shh >:(
-
Yeah and Ian Campbell was head of NIKE. ::)
And who hired Ian Campbell? It was CASEY.
-
A corporate leader. Yes he is. Do your homework.
A footy club leader? That's yet to be determined. But what I do know already, is that Casey is not. A leader that loses the club money, takes it back on the same path the club was in in the 80s, losing money, not able to recruit top players. Yes, he's proven to be a crap leader.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone could do better than this clown
So is the fact that in the last year Macek was on the board the club lost $800k is ot relevant. Though, I am sure Charles will tell us he was only on the board for part of the year and it aint his fault.
If anyone can do better than Casey - does that mean you'd vote for me 1980 :cheers
-
On the AFL recommendation too. Campbell was a corporate guru too
Hey 1980, if you are so passionate about the alternative ticket, go and meet you humble leader in Macek and draw an opinion from that, I am sure you will be impressed. ;)
-
A corporate leader. Yes he is. Do your homework.
A footy club leader? That's yet to be determined. But what I do know already, is that Casey is not. A leader that loses the club money, takes it back on the same path the club was in in the 80s, losing money, not able to recruit top players. Yes, he's proven to be a crap leader.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone could do better than this clown
If anyone can do better than Casey - does that mean you'd vote for me 1980 :cheers
Yes I would. In fact, if you make a run, let me know what its going to cost you. You can put me down as one of your sponsers.
-
On the AFL recommendation too. Campbell was a corporate guru too
Hey 1980, if you are so passionate about the alternative ticket, go and meet you humble leader in Macek and draw an opinion from that, I am sure you will be impressed. ;)
On the AFL recommendation? Get a grip. What sort of leadership is that to take the recommendation of the AFL and not even interview the candidate yourself? You call that leadership? You call that running a club properly?
I dont need to meet Macek. I've seen enough of Casey, and thats enough for me.
-
And who hired Ian Campbell? It was CASEY.
And who hired Greg Miller - and it wasn't Brendan Schwab - that's right it was Casey.
Who hired steven Wright - who everone I have spoken to says is (so far) excellent?
And I remember listening to both Nathan Brown and more recently Terry Wallace speak of Casey in excellent terms, with both saying that the way he conducted himself and as a result how the Club conducted and presented itself was first rate.
-
And this is a serious question ....
What happens if Casey, Macek & schwab get elected?
Do they spit the dummy and resign seeing they probably wont work together and then we get back to this situation where the board appoint people (as they are allowed to under our constitution) or do we have to have another election and spend another $60K we don't have?
-
I am happy to have an election HarryH but I want to be able to vote for who I want - not tickets that contain a variety of "nuff nuffs" and cartoon characters
I'm not quite sure how the election will work, maybe someone can clarify. Do we elect individuals, or do we elect one board against the other.
Either way, you simply vote for who you want. If you're happy with Casey and his group then you vote for them. If not you vote for the Macek and the other group. This is how democracy works.
You might be happy with Casey and his group but I'm sure that others aren't and are quite impressed with the alternatives. I know the alternatives have alot of support and have the right, or can demand the right to an election, whether some people like it or not.
Casey has failed and failed in a massive way. We are broke and we are the current spooners. If this doesn't warrant an election I don't know what does.
Bring on the elections.
-
Firsty yes we lost a bucket load of money byt we're a NOT broke! We are in debt by approx 600K. In a $20-25 million business that should be managable. If you just take Otto's salary out we've almost already back to square ;).
At a normal AGM election, if there were challenges then we would vote individuals in (the ballot paper has the candidates listed in alphabetcial order).
At a EGM we vote on whatever is contained within the alternative's proposition that forced the EGM. It'll be interesting to see how that is worded and whether it's written as a change in one go (current board out, alternative in) or if there's a need for a further election down the track. The impression I got from Schwab today was that he seemed to want a ticket vote but there's nothing in the constitution about voting in groups; only individuals.
I want an election but I'm concerned about a EGM as the voting is confined to the terms of the proposition that forced the EGM. Well that's my understanding.
-
You might be happy with Casey and his group but I'm sure that others aren't and are quite impressed with the alternatives. I know the alternatives have alot of support and have the right, or can demand the right to an election, whether some people like it or not.
Ok then, if anyone can let me in on the big secret and please let me know why people would support the alternative ticket I’d appreciate it. Because it’s got me absolutely stumped.
-
KB said if you were in charge would you be able to stop Otto from leaving. Schwab didn't give a direct answer and went on about having a 3-5 plan.
Did he give any indication what the plan was MT?
Ronnie B's thread is all what Schwab said. The comment about the club blaming people who leave. Of course still no detail on what they would differently to what we have now (except of course caving in to Otto's manager's demands of big bucks just to keep him ::) )
The Alternative ticket - high on flairy-floss rhetoric, low on detail.
-
]
Ok then, if anyone can let me in on the big secret and please let me know why people would support the alternative ticket I’d appreciate it. Because it’s got me absolutely stumped.
Tiger I'll have a go for you - and excuse me if this is obvious stuff.
If you assume that the current board, or Casey in particular, has done a bad job, you might want to replace them/him. Normally you wouldn't get a chance to do this except by chipping away at 3 directors per year through an Annual General Meeting. Now that's not really affective or practical.
Often, when a board/president is unpopular or has performed badly, an alternative board/president puts itself up and asks for either a smooth take-over (as Casey achieved when he came in and as Eddie did at Collingwood) or an election where the current board/president refuses to walk and the alternative then offers themselves as a package. This is where we are at at RFC. We only have one alternative - it's not possible to pull these things out of a hat - you more or less have to live with what's on offer or stick with the current lot - there are no multiple choices.
I think that it's fair to say that most members are not happy with the current board or Casey. Some may think that it/he have moved in the right direction by appointing GM. TW and the new CEO, but generally the numbers and on field performance are an F. I think it's also fair to say that the current board are not united - we know for fact that Casey wants two of them off before they are due for re-election.
Now one has to consider if the alternative - as a whole - is better than the current board/president. The main criticism appears to be that too many of the "new" alternative have been there before, and they have no plan.
For what it's worth, a number of the alternative people seem to have left because of Casey's autocratic style - this seems to be a common theme. There is also disquiet regarding corporate governance - these are not the sort of things that people feel comfortable about expressing when they leave a club and maybe some of them used other reasons for leaving (not enough time, other priorities etc) in order to save the club from embarassment.
Brendan Schwab started the new group. He soon realized that he didn't have the credibility to pull it off - he went for Macek as alternative president leaving himself as the sort of "go to" man. They put together as strong a group as they could (many people won't committ to these things - eg Gale, Rex, KB ;) ) and have tried to get a cross section of abilities together.
The new group made a peace deal with Casey around July to ensure that we got a good coach and CEO but there appears to be a disagreement as to what else was specifically agreed upon. The new group now wants to use the scheduled AGM to have a vote for all 9 board places instead of the normal 3 and to do this they need the currrent 9 to resign and present themselves again.
I'm pretty sure this will happen.
You and all other members then must decide whether you prefer the new group (who wlil present as a whole) or want to stick with 9 others under Casey. (Casey may well produce his own group and it might be a simple choice between each group)
The new group will surely present to the members their credentials and their plans or vision in mail outs and on websites prior to the AGM.
regards
-
Big problem is Ronnie that new group dont have plan.
The new group consisted of 2 ex board members who rang every ex-player and every tom, dick and harry to get a team together.the majority of people they contacted told them to get lost when they found out Schwab was involved.
And they eventually came up with an alternative ticket. ::)
Mightytiges is 100% right, the debt we are in does not mean we are broke.
Some people think its doom and gloom, get real.
At least one thing that has occurred that the current board has corrected there mistakes. New Coach, New CEO, Football Manager etc.
-
Ronnie, what if other people want to nominate as Independents? You can't tell them they can't nominate because it's this ticket against another.
-
VOTE 1 FROARS
FROARS !
-
VOTE 1 FROARS
I'll bring back pleasant Sunday mornings - waddya reckon - a vote winner ;D
-
At least you are one policy already ahead of anyone else ;)
-
froars (maaaaate)
In a normal year with a normal AGM anyone can nominate, and I guess anyone can nominate this time, but they are going to be facing a group who wants to present as a block and who wants to take over.
It's an abnormal situation. I'm only assuming that Casey will go to the members and say "this is my group" . Whether you have to tick 9 boxes or one box will be up to those who decide the procedures for the vote, but the Schwab group will certainly be asking members to vote for a block.
Jackstar
Surely they will put out material which must include their vision. I've no doubt it was difficult for them to put a group together - few people want to commit to these things but lots like to snipe from the side (not you of course).
I'm keeping an open mind until I see their proposal - if they don't have one or it's not up to scratch then I'll stick with Casey - after all look where he's placed us after 5 years in the job - hmm - maybe I should think about that :o.
-
The new group consisted of 2 ex board members who rang every ex-player and every tom, dick and harry to get a team together.the majority of people they contacted told them to get lost when they found out Schwab was involved.
And they eventually came up with an alternative ticket. ::)
Casey did exactly the same thing, and came up with Anthony Mitten.
-
And who hired Ian Campbell? It was CASEY.
And who hired Greg Miller - and it wasn't Brendan Schwab - that's right it was Casey.
Who hired steven Wright - who everone I have spoken to says is (so far) excellent?
And I remember listening to both Nathan Brown and more recently Terry Wallace speak of Casey in excellent terms, with both saying that the way he conducted himself and as a result how the Club conducted and presented itself was first rate.
You're kidding around with this post, right?
Steven Wright was selected after yet another debacle. The guy in Brisbane (Leighton something) was shoehorned by Casey, and his back was so crook he didnt even come to Melb for an interview. After Caro went public, the board decided they also wanted to interview him. Did you not read Casey's consistent comments how Mr Leighton was a perfect replacement as CEO? Listening to him is like watching a Seinfeld episode. Comical!!!
I'm pleased Brown speaks highly of Casey. So did Ottens before him.
When Greg Miller started in the job, he asked supporters to be patient for 3 years. Now its another 5. The jury is still out on Greg. And it was hardly a coup to get him to Tigerland. He was coaching the Hammerheads. There were no other clubs knocking on his door. All he's got to show right now is a wooden spoon.
We've all got great hope Greg is key to turning us around, but you cannot hold him up as the reason Clinton Casey is doing a good job.
And on the topic, who is to say if Greg Miller wasnt there, Kevin Sheedy wouldnt be coaching us next year.
-
You're kidding around with this post, right?
Nope serious actaully :thumbsup
I was trying to highlight that while it is easy to criticise Casey and blame him for everything - there have been correct decisions and more importantly he and his board have a plan in place that will get us out of the mire - the fact is the AFL have backed this business plan and this point is importnat to me.
Steven Wright was selected after yet another debacle. The guy in Brisbane (Leighton something) was shoehorned by Casey, and his back was so crook he didnt even come to Melb for an interview.
I am sorry but you are wrong here 1980. After being interviewed by Casey and I think Miller Leigthon Wood came to Melbourne and was interviewed a by the entire board.
After Caro went public, the board decided they also wanted to interview him. Did you not read Casey's consistent comments how Mr Leighton was a perfect replacement as CEO? Listening to him is like watching a Seinfeld episode. Comical!!!
Caro going public on anything to do with the RFC is comical - she has made it abundantly clear her views on the current administration and has proven that she cannot give a balanced report. As for Casey's comments on Leighton Wood - I don't think saying we are going to interview him and before the interview saying his credentials look good is comical
We've all got great hope Greg is key to turning us around, but you cannot hold him up as the reason Clinton Casey is doing a good job.
Not for one minute will I hold Greg Miller as the only reason that Casey is doing a good job. He has made some horrendous mistakes but compared to the alternative - well ... they still have given me one reason to support them. I am still waiting on their plan.
The fact is it is because of Clinton Caey that Greg Miller is the RFC. I doubt very much that Terry Wallace would be our coach if it wasn't for Greg Miller.
The bottom line is currently I am faced with 2 choices - it the devil I know versus the circus clowns :-\
-
Hey 1990.
If there was a fair dinkum alternative, you would look at them. Unfortunately there isnt. Having past board members return isnt the answer.
Have you ever re-employed people who have left there job and want to return ? Ask yourself that.
Elections of the board is no good for anyone in this instance, as there is a good possibilty that you will have a split.That means back to square one ,as you vote in board members not parties !So we could have the same result as 2003/2004
Anyway, has anyone here ever been on a board? I have and the majority vote rules. If you disagree with a topic and your a minority , bad luck, thats how a board works.
Obvisously Welsh and Schwab dont know that !
-
The new group will surely present to the members their credentials and their plans or vision in mail outs and on websites prior to the AGM.
Thanks for your efforts RonB.
That’s all well and good that we get the big bad meanies out of RFC, but then what? What would life be like under this alternative ticket? Perhaps we’ve already had a sneak preview and that’s my biggest concern. Replacing one group of people with little idea with another that has absolutely no idea isn’t really the sort of change we’re after. Is it?
If the way they have gone about this alternative ticket is anything to go by then I won’t expect too much from their plans. Even if they have an amazing plan, I still wouldn’t have the confidence in them to be able to carry it out.
To now, all they have done is show that they are directionless, without vision and not even living in the real world.
The problem I have is that the reasons provided always seem to be fear-based and give me nothing to say that I should support the alternative ticket, because they are better placed and equipped to take RFC into the future.
In fact, because of the way they have handled things, they give the opposite impression. They can’t operate in the environment they’re in so they up and leave. If they’re not big enough to deal with Casey then how does anyone expect them to deal with the bigger egos they would be confronted with in the AFL world?
With these people at the helm, RFC will be like a walking door mat and just get walked all over and pushed around by the AFL and other League clubs.
If we’re going to throw out what’s already there then I want something that tells me they are a better option, otherwise why go through all this drama when things will be no better? Where’s their capacity to create positive change when all they are doing is creating more division. Which is something we’re badly in need of here at Richmond. And if that’s their idea of positive change and creating unity then they can have it to themselves.
With the amount of time it’s taken for them to get anything happening and all the drama and upheaval they have created these past few months, it makes you wonder how serious they really are and where they’re priorities are. Having such people in place, who give you no confidence that they know what a plan or direction even is and how to methodically carry it out, is massive cause for concern in my book.
I still don’t believe the alternative has any idea what they are doing and that they have what it takes to do any better than what is already there. So I’ll take my chances with the current Board and know that there is an election every year where I can have my say.
If people like Schwab and co would stop interfering with the normal way of running our footy club then we wouldn’t need to be going through any of this. They are just perpetuating the old Richmond and so they’ll never ever get my vote.
-
Tiger Spirit :bow
-
Tiger Spirit, great post.
-
I was trying to highlight that while it is easy to criticise Casey and blame him for everything - there have been correct decisions and more importantly he and his board have a plan in place that will get us out of the mire - the fact is the AFL have backed this business plan and this point is importnat to me.
Not for one minute will I hold Greg Miller as the only reason that Casey is doing a good job. He has made some horrendous mistakes but compared to the alternative - well ... they still have given me one reason to support them. I am still waiting on their plan.
You're pledging your support to Casey because the others dont have a plan. Lets apply that right across the club.
1) We shouldnt cut players from the list until we have already secured new ones that have a plan.
2) We shouldnt sack coaches and assistant coaches until we have already interviewed ones that have a better plan
3) We shouldnt replace a president that stuffs up everything he can possibly stuff up on & off the field until a new one comes along that has a better plan.
Stuff that. I support sacking Frawley for not performing in his job as coach and winning us a wooden spoon, delisting crap players that are not AFL standard, and sacking the president that put the club back into the red.
Dont know what you do for a living WP, but I'd seriously be interested to work for you. I'd love to sit there and stuff everything up, and when you come over to have a word with me, tell you that you cant fire me until you find someone better that has a better plan. :P
-
:cheers Jackstar.
-
I reckon we have a current board that is ordinary and has made mistakes and are fixing them and a alternative ticket with little or no idea.
Take your pick!
Pretty simple actually !
-
You're pledging your support to Casey because the others dont have a plan. Lets apply that right across the club.
I will support the current board 1980, because the alternative has given me no and I mean no reason to do otherwise. I want a viable alternative - where is it?
1) We shouldnt cut players from the list until we have already secured new ones that have a plan.
We cut players because we do have a plan - it called getting new ones ;D
Dont know what you do for a living WP, but I'd seriously be interested to work for you.
No you wouldn't 1980 - they tell me I am a tyrant. ;)
And what do I do for a living? Clearly not much because of the amount of time I spending posting here :thumbsup but I do spend a fair bit of time fixing others mistakes ;)
I put this question to you 1980 - I know you are anti Casey. But can you tell me what the alternative mob is going to do to fix things and why you believe they are the answer?
-
I reckon we have a current board that is ordinary and has made mistakes and are fixing them and a alternative ticket with little or no idea.
Take your pick!
Pretty simple actually !
That's what I have been trying to say :bow thanks Jack :thumbsup
-
That’s all well and good that we get the big bad meanies out of RFC, but then what? What would life be like under this alternative ticket? Perhaps we’ve already had a sneak preview and that’s my biggest concern. Replacing one group of people with little idea with another that has absolutely no idea isn’t really the sort of change we’re after. Is it?
If the way they have gone about this alternative ticket is anything to go by then I won’t expect too much from their plans. Even if they have an amazing plan, I still wouldn’t have the confidence in them to be able to carry it out.
To now, all they have done is show that they are directionless, without vision and not even living in the real world.
The problem I have is that the reasons provided always seem to be fear-based and give me nothing to say that I should support the alternative ticket, because they are better placed and equipped to take RFC into the future.
In fact, because of the way they have handled things, they give the opposite impression. They can’t operate in the environment they’re in so they up and leave. If they’re not big enough to deal with Casey then how does anyone expect them to deal with the bigger egos they would be confronted with in the AFL world?
With these people at the helm, RFC will be like a walking door mat and just get walked all over and pushed around by the AFL and other League clubs.
If we’re going to throw out what’s already there then I want something that tells me they are a better option, otherwise why go through all this drama when things will be no better? Where’s their capacity to create positive change when all they are doing is creating more division. Which is something we’re badly in need of here at Richmond. And if that’s their idea of positive change and creating unity then they can have it to themselves.
With the amount of time it’s taken for them to get anything happening and all the drama and upheaval they have created these past few months, it makes you wonder how serious they really are and where they’re priorities are. Having such people in place, who give you no confidence that they know what a plan or direction even is and how to methodically carry it out, is massive cause for concern in my book.
I still don’t believe the alternative has any idea what they are doing and that they have what it takes to do any better than what is already there. So I’ll take my chances with the current Board and know that there is an election every year where I can have my say.
If people like Schwab and co would stop interfering with the normal way of running our footy club then we wouldn’t need to be going through any of this. They are just perpetuating the old Richmond and so they’ll never ever get my vote.
:bow :bow :bow :cheers
Well said TS - very well said :cheers
-
Tiger Spirit - don't get sucked in by Jackstar's fawning - he loves anyone who supports his position ::)
I think that you are being a tad hard on the Macek group - it's a bit difficult to have a smooth and seamless transition to a new board if the incumbants dig in, and it's also difficult to expound your plans whilst being denied oxygen.
My attitude is not to put up the barricades on behalf of a failed and obviously flawed board and president. Why not hear what the alternatives have to say? Why do you judge them so harshly before you read their manifesto? Are you so happy with the current situation that you don't want to even give these guys their day in court so to speak?
So far the only defence of the current board that I've heard is that the new guys are recycled and they have no plan. If two of them left because the president is a dictator and they thought the corporate governance was bad - that's a good reason to leave. They can come back - if they felt he's bad for the club maybe it's their duty to come back and kick him out.
I'm personally amazed why so many people are supporting a failed board - 5 years of failure - they are the weakest link - but I'm still waiting to decide.
-
ditto for WP ..............................lol .....just kiddin"
-
My attitude is not to put up the barricades on behalf of a failed and obviously flawed borad and president. Why not hear what the alternatives have to say? Why do you judge them so harshly before you read their manifesto? Are you so happy with the current situation that you don't want to even give these guys their day in court so to speak?
I understand what you are saying RonBranton but what you highlight is what annoys me. They have been bumbling around for months and told us what's wrong and whos to blame but they haven't once given anybody any idea of how they going to fix things. We sit and wait and then we wait somemore - have Caro throw us a few scraps ;).
So far the only defence of the current board that I've heard is that the new guys are recycled and they have no plan. If two of them left because the president is a dictator and they thought the corporate governance was bad - that's a good reason to leave.
If the governance was so "bad" as one has claimed why didn't they go to a higher authroity Ron? Corporations Law is very specific when it comes to grievances. As for number 2 - well he didn't have the time Ron - nothing sinister there.
I'm personally amazed why so many people are supporting a failed board - 5 years of failure - they are the weakest link - but I'm still waiting to decide.
Ron please don't forget that the 2 who quit are a party to that failure - they were both on the board for 4 of the past 5 years. They are part of your weakest link
ditto for WP ..............................lol .....just kiddin"
Too late Ron ;D
-
Ronnie maaaaate,
How can i vote for a block of nine and, say, one Independent - that adds up to 10.
I want my choice of individuals, or there'll be trouble lol.
Why do they have to hold each other's hands - if they're such hot shots, they should be able to stand alone!
-
I reckon we have a current board that is ordinary and has made mistakes and are fixing them and a alternative ticket with little or no idea.
Take your pick!
Pretty simple actually !
That's what 1980, myself and others are also saying. For members to have their pick via an election.
Bring on the election.
-
froaaaasie
I guess I was trying to say that they might decide to have a ballot paper that is like the vote for the senate (you do vote don't you - yes and I know who for) where they allow you to vote above or below the line. Tick once if you prefer either "group" or tick 9 times if you want to vote for individuals.
As we have a group wanting to present as a block I'm just assuming that the RFC can determine how the election is run. Maybe we will have to put 9 numbers in and follow the recomendation of the groups if we want to or vote all over the place if we don't.
-
Tiger Spirit - don't get sucked in by Jackstar's fawning - he loves anyone who supports his position ::)
Oh, why not RonB? I’m not one to dismiss a compliment, however it comes my way. I may never get another one.
I think that you are being a tad hard on the Macek group - it's a bit difficult …
That’s their whole problem, they think it’s all a walk in the park and aren’t ready for what’s coming their way. They leave the Board when they would have been better placed staying on it. I could go on and on, but I think you know what I mean. They just don’t show good leadership qualities to me.
And I’m not so blinkered in my views that if they suddenly come across as knowing what they are doing that I will bite my nose to spite my face.
I’ve had a change of heart before and if I see the need to here I’ll do it again. But from what has been shown so far, I doubt that will be necessary.
-
I guess I was trying to say that they might decide to have a ballot paper that is like the vote for the senate where they allow you to vote above or below the line. Tick once if you prefer either "group" or tick 9 times if you want to vote for individuals.
As we have a group wanting to present as a block I'm just assuming that the RFC can determine how the election is run. Maybe we will have to put 9 numbers in and follow the recomendation of the groups if we want to or vote all over the place if we don't.
The names must be in alphabetical order so for a full board election the ballot paper would look something like ... Barrot, Cameron, Casey, Humphries, Lord, Macek, March, Matthies, Mithin, Nicklos, Schwab, Turner, Welsh. A whole mish-mash of both sides mixed together.
8.2.3 (c) A voting paper shall be prepared (if necessary) containing the names of the candidates in alphabetical order, and each member shall be entitled to vote for any number of such candidates not exceeding the number of vacancies. Votes shall be counted using the "First Past the Post' method, in accordance with any by-laws.
-
Hey Ronnie, this is not an election of parties, but election of people to stand on the board.So , you will always have split boards or differences of opinions on boards
Anyway, my mail is there cant be an election anyway.
You might find there will be only 3 spots up for grab not 9.
Why should someone stand down and stand for election before there time. :o
This is all crap !
If there is only three spots up why dont Schwab , Macek and Welsh stand for election again see what happens. Betcha they dont ,
See if they can assist this football club, something they couldnt to do the first time as they didnt get there way and went sooking.
Fair dinkum, they are three ordinary individuals
-
Tiger Spirit - don't get sucked in by Jackstar's fawning - he loves anyone who supports his position ::)
.
Yes Ronnie, Thats what makes good leaders ;)
-
If this goes to a EGM then the current board members won't be asked to stand down then stand for re-election. We as members will be asked to disqualify the whole current board and replace them with the whole alternative ticket as per 13.g (I'm presuming that's how the alternative will go about their petition). At an EGM we vote on what the petition is based on; not just from a list of candidates like at a AGM. It would need to go to another election for the latter to happen if the EGM only askes to toss the current board out and a temporary board takes over. That's my understanding anyway. In any case the alternative would need a large voter turnout otherwise they'll get done easily on proxies which is controlled by the chairman (Casey). That's why I presume they want the AEC involved to encourage as many members as possible to vote.
-
Jackstar
This is my understanding: but first a question
Did Casey agree in June or July that the whole board would put itself up for re-election at the December AGM in consideration for the Schwab/Macek group holding off on a call for an EGM and to allow the board to appoint a coach?
I think so.
If the Schwab/Macek group want to present as a group then they need to tell the members which numbers and names on the ballot paper represent their group.
If Casey wants to present a group he can do the same.
If somebody outside these two groups wants to stand they can do so.
My simple point is that the RFC might want to make it simple if there are only two groups to design a ballot paper that says vote group 1 or 2. If they want to list the 18 candidates alphabetically that's also an obvious possibility. From what Tiger says it appears that they will list all 18 (or more). Whichever way we should be having a full spill of the board because Casey said he would. If he doesn't he's disingenuous.
-
As I have tried to explained, you will find he cant make everyone resign (step down ) legally ::)
-
Whats even more amazing that supporters want to support a alternative ticket run by someone they dont know, Oh Boy are we in strife.
I have actually met him, I wouldnt give him the time of day. Personality plus he,s NOT
-
Claims disappointing: Richmond treasurer
By Lyall Johnson
realfooty.theage.com.au
September 30, 2004
The Richmond Football Club board yesterday hit back at demands for its resignation and claims it had not provided proper financial statements to the "alternate" board.
In the absence of president Clinton Casey, who is overseas, treasurer Garry Cameron yesterday said the board was "disappointed" with the demands of the alternate board, which is being led by former board members Charles Macek and Brendan Schwab.
Cameron said in the statement that the implications of the alternate board that the Casey board had not "honoured its undertaking to provide access to financial and commercial information" were incorrect. "In fact, such material was prepared many weeks ago and has been awaiting the execution of a confidentiality deed by the nominated alternative ticket representative because the material requested extended to information on arrangements," he said.
The alternate board has refused to sign a confidentiality agreement, which Cameron described as a "standard commercial practice" required to protect the commercial material the alternate board was seeking to have released.
The alternate board is seeking the resignation of the present board to allow the proper election of a new entity in December and has threatened to bring on an extraordinary general meeting..
http://realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/09/29/1096401648191.html
-
I dont blame the club for asking for a confidentially agreement. You can imagine that bit and pieces would be in the media next day to discredit the club. Fair dinkum, are people stupid or what ::)
Well done Garry Cameron.
At least you put the club first and I might add you contribution to the RFC has been enourmous over the years with your knowledge and corporate support through the orginisation you are with. Thank you.
-
You can imagine that bit and pieces would be in the media next day to discredit the club.
Not to mention being posted on "Propaganda-R-US" lol
-
Well done Garry Cameron.
At least you put the club first and I might add you contribution to the RFC has been enourmous over the years with your knowledge and corporate support through the orginisation you are with. Thank you.
Spot on Jackstar - Garry Cameron is passionate Richmond person who has done alot behind the scenes that most people wouldn't know about.
Top bloke - who has my total support :thumbsup
-
Cameron said in the statement that the implications of the alternate board that the Casey board had not "honoured its undertaking to provide access to financial and commercial information" were incorrect. "In fact, such material was prepared many weeks ago and has been awaiting the execution of a confidentiality deed by the nominated alternative ticket representative because the material requested extended to information on arrangements," he said.
The alternate board has refused to sign a confidentiality agreement, which Cameron described as a "standard commercial practice" required to protect the commercial material the alternate board was seeking to have released.
Exactly what I said yesterday! :banghead
Your group were told they could have access to the books if you signed an confidentiality agreement - now considering that some of the things you wanted to see included "commercial agreements" (your words not mine see above) so you should be required to sign an agreement.
If I had a commercial arrangement with the RFC (eg a sponsorship agreement) I wouldn't want every man and his dog seeing what the contract says. Get real.
I'll say it again....
If I was the TAC, Motorola, CUB, Connex or any other sponsor or even a player I would expect that the RFC demand that these people sign a confidentiality agreement. Details of these agreements have never and should never be for public consumption.
-
I can see it now, RFC statement of accounts posted on a "certain website ""
-
The alternate board is seeking the resignation of the present board to allow the proper election of a new entity in December and has threatened to bring on an extraordinary general meeting..
Decisions, decisions.
Let’s see, on one side we have a group that, despite being under duress, has absorbed the pressure and managed to attract a new coach and CEO and re-sign (note the strategically placed hypen) Mark Coughlan. It was known at Round 1 of this season that we were heading for a huge loss. Despite that, there was no blow out on that figure.
On the other side, we have a group that consists of a number of previous Directors of the RFC Board. For whatever reason, they are no longer there. Two of them chose to leave of their own free will, this year and it seems that they weren’t able to operate in the Board environment of the time.
Now we find that they have set up their own little group, which is no doubt nice and comfortable and where everything is all sweetness and light. They probably hold hands, at regular intervals, as a group, and are possibly out catching butterflies together, as we speak. Memo to the alternative ticket: The real world doesn’t operate like that. Generally, things get uncomfortable at times and you need to deal with pressurised and stressful situations. If you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen. And that’s what Schwab and Welsh did.
No doubt with tears in their eyes, for the wonderful service he had given the group all those weeks, it was mutually agreed that Schwab shouldn’t be leader, when blind Freddy could have told them that from the outset. It’s still unclear if they have the man to lead them on this treacherous mission. But I’m sure they’ll sort that out sometime between now and the 12th of never.
In a striking blow to the current Board, ::) Schwab comes out yesterday and says he would pay Ottens market value. I’d like to see him work hand in hand with Greg Miller, if that was the case. Miller knows the direction he’s going in and how to get there, but along would come Schwab and his mates and say, no, we have to do what everyone wants or we’ll be out of a job. Give Otto what he wants. Are they serious?
Whatever their faults, the current Board has still delivered results, despite reported disharmony, disunity and infighting.
If it were me, I would choose those who can operate under duress, can stand in the face of outside pressures and, amid all the turmoil, can get things done. They’re the people for me. They don’t need to win popularity stakes, they just need to show that they can do the job asked of them, despite what’s going on around them.
Schwab and co don’t seem capable of doing that. They can nit pick and dig up as much dirt as they like, it will only reinforce the view that they are small and narrow minded, lack vision and credibility and basically have nothing of value to contribute to RFC.
-
TS
:bow :bow :bow :bow
:cheers
:thumbsup
Beautifully said.
-
It had to be said WP. I can't stand the incompetence by these nincompoops. The thought of them coming anywhere near RFC makes my skin crawl.
I know I rave on, but I'll keep saying it until there's no need to.
-
Tiger - I guess somebody has to keep you honest - might as well be me ;D
"It was known at Round 1 of this season that we were heading for a huge loss. Despite that, there was no blow out on that figure."
You have been listening to Cameron ;) That says to me that it's ok to stuff the plan and the budget so long as you don't let it get any worse once you discover the mess. The same people who had "no blow out" were responsible for the huge loss or was it somebody else?
"Give Otto what he wants"
Schwab didn't say that - he talked generally about it being galling to supporters that RFC was not able to pay market rates because they were in a financial mess. When pushed by KB he said it was not appropriate to discuss individual players. My Jimmy Olsen style report on the whole interview is available at no charge on another thread.
regards
ps - I'm not necessarily supporting the Schwab group - just like to see some balance
-
I know I rave on, but I'll keep saying it until there's no need to.
I know I rave on as well - I keep saying the same things over and over and have been for months but the alternative ticket offer nothing.
All they seem to give us is scare mongering. They point fingers, they criticise, they carry on through the media, they jump up and down like 5 year olds in a school yard if they don't get there own way and yet they present nothing on how they intend to fix things.
If I wanted scare mongering ... well there is a Federal Election campaign going on...I can get it from there :-\ ;D
-
Ron - you're gonna start to think TS & I are some tag team. :lol
But you actuallt raise some interesitng points.....
You have been listening to Cameron ;) That says to me that it's ok to stuff the plan and the budget so long as you don't let it get any worse once you discover the mess. The same people who had "no blow out" were responsible for the huge loss or was it somebody else?
Budgets - one of my favourite topics. ;) The RFC financial years runs from 1st Nov to 31st October. Therefore budgets are signed off by the board in August/September. Budgets would be put together by the Clubs Adminstration (CEO, dept heads etc) the board approves the budget (this is what happens at most companies). If we go back to August/September of 2003 when this budgets were approved let's look at who made up that board.
Casey
Turner
Cameron
March
Jewell
Lord
Daddo
Schwab :o :o
Welsh :o :o
Now these are the fellows that OK'd these budgets - so lets point the finger at all of them. Not meeting revenue forecasts is what has cost us and the blame for that lies not just at board level for approving the unacheivable but also the administration for forcasting the impossible.
As to when this mess was discovered - it was early this year and believe me if they had let things continue the way it was then we wouldn't be losing $2.2 million.
"Give Otto what he wants"
Schwab didn't say that - he talked generally about it being galling to supporters that RFC was not able to pay market rates because they were in a financial mess. When pushed by KB he said it was not appropriate to discuss individual players. My Jimmy Olsen style report on the whole interview is available at no charge on another thread.
Read your report Ron - good work :thumbsup
I think Brendan is living in "Noddyland" on this one to be honest. I think a good number of supporters are relived that we are no longer be dictated to by players and player managers. Further, I reckon good number are ecstatic that the days of the Club over paying and throwing good money after bad for players seems to be finally over.
-
This is all crap !
If there is only three spots up why dont Schwab , Macek and Welsh stand for election again see what happens. Betcha they dont ,
See if they can assist this football club, something they couldnt to do the first time as they didnt get there way and went sooking.
Fair dinkum, they are three ordinary individuals
Jackstar, this is an entire distortion of the facts.
Macek stepped aside when the new board came in ie when Casey was elected. He wanted to stay on the board, but acknowledged the new presidents wish for him to leave and for new blood to be brought in.
And that's the way it should be done. I note that the current president has decided to put himself before the club, and refuses to do the same.
Regardless, the current president has had 5 years. The club is further back today than it was 5 years ago both financially and on the field. Not even you can argue against that. Those are the facts. Based on the 5 year record of Clinton Casey, and 5 years is long enough to create success, he is a failure and should step aside.
Appointing Terry Wallace as coach does not in any way wipe away his 5 year record.
The other 2, left the board because it wasnt operating as a board. It was rubber stamping decisions made by the pres, they had no insight into decisions and appointments, and more importantly finances. That is their claim anyway. For a guy claiming that you also sit on boards, you should know how dangerous it is to sit on a board and have no access to key company info. Unless you sit on boards like Enron, HIH and OneTel that is.
As far as I'm concerned, I have a long memory. Swab and co can claim all they like that Casey was not accountable to his board, so they left, but what I care about, is that Clinton Casey was unaccountable to his members. Until these challenges came about, we had no idea what the hell was going on at Punt Rd. Casey was running the club as if it was his own little toy. Now he's got to go before the members and argue why they should persevere with him. And even if he wins, that is a great thing for the club.
-
Whats even more amazing that supporters want to support a alternative ticket run by someone they dont know, Oh Boy are we in strife.
I have actually met him, I wouldnt give him the time of day. Personality plus he,s NOT
You had some credibility when you were making these comments about swab, but everything you've said about swab you're now saying about Macek.
Clearly, no matter who runs against Clinton Casey, you'll say the same.
I havent met either of them, but I know who is responsible for taking the club further back over the past 5 years than where it was 5 years ago.
Clinton Casey=wooden spoons & financial losses
-
"It was known at Round 1 of this season that we were heading for a huge loss. Despite that, there was no blow out on that figure."
You have been listening to Cameron ;) That says to me that it's ok to stuff the plan and the budget so long as you don't let it get any worse once you discover the mess. The same people who had "no blow out" were responsible for the huge loss or was it somebody else?
And…
"Give Otto what he wants"
Schwab didn't say that - he talked generally about it being galling to supporters that RFC was not able to pay market rates because they were in a financial mess. When pushed by KB he said it was not appropriate to discuss individual players. My Jimmy Olsen style report on the whole interview is available at no charge on another thread.
regards
ps - I'm not necessarily supporting the Schwab group - just like to see some balance
No Jimmy Olsen style reporting on Cameron’s interview this morning then RonB? Would be good to get a balanced view of that one, seeing as I would be incapable of doing that. :'(
And anyway, what do you mean RonB? This is balanced. When they give us a reason to give them some credit they’ll get it. I wouldn’t hold my breath though.
-
1980, i asked you once before - which you didn't answer - why you think Macek would be a good President. See thread: http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=646.0
I have no idea if Macek would be a good leader either, but i can't support him at the moment, seeing as he's another one who's been there and done that before. And of the rumours that I've heard before that he didn't get on with either Schwab or Welsh when there were on the board together before - thus i question why anything would be any different this time around. And I do stress, they were only rumours, but rumours all the same i heard a couple of years before any of this started happening.
Would really appreciate your thoughts on Macek - and i'm not interested in any boards and stuff he's on - lots of these guys are on boards. I want to know why he'd make a great RFC president in your opinion.
-
1980, i asked you once before - which you didn't answer - why you think Macek would be a good President. See thread: http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=646.0
I have no idea if Macek would be a good leader either, but i can't support him at the moment, seeing as he's another one who's been there and done that before. And of the rumours that I've heard before that he didn't get on with either Schwab or Welsh when there were on the board together before - thus i question why anything would be any different this time around. And I do stress, they were only rumours, but rumours all the same i heard a couple of years before any of this started happening.
Would really appreciate your thoughts on Macek - and i'm not interested in any boards and stuff he's on - lots of these guys are on boards. I want to know why he'd make a great RFC president in your opinion.
Well froarsy, if we're going to start diggin up the past, there's a whole trail of posts by you on BF throughout the entire year demanding to know what was going on down at Punt Rd, and accusing Casey of being a dictator. And not too many argued with you cos you were right.
I dont think Macek is going to be a great president. I just want the current president to be held accountable for the past 5 years.
There is a lot wrong with what's going on down at Punt Rd. And all of a sudden ppl think that Miller and Wallace will save us. They wont. For a club to be successful, everything needs to work, starting right at the top. And the Casey administration has proven over the past 5 years that it is a bunch of losers. In fact, it is the worst ever board to run the RFC. We can point fingers at the Ian Wilson board sending the club to the brink in the 80s, but they had also delivered presmierships to this club. Neville Crowe saved the club. Daphne got us financially strong and memberships flourished as well as corporate sponserships.
Clinto Casey has set the club back financially to where it was 20 years ago. $2m loss, something we havent had for a long time, and a wooden spoon.
I am extremely disappointed that others didnt run. There's alot of quality Richmond ppl around that should have put their hands up but didnt. If its Macek, so be it. At least we wont be losing money with him running things.
-
1980, i asked you once before - which you didn't answer - why you think Macek would be a good President. See thread: http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=646.0
I have no idea if Macek would be a good leader either, but i can't support him at the moment, seeing as he's another one who's been there and done that before. And of the rumours that I've heard before that he didn't get on with either Schwab or Welsh when there were on the board together before - thus i question why anything would be any different this time around. And I do stress, they were only rumours, but rumours all the same i heard a couple of years before any of this started happening.
Would really appreciate your thoughts on Macek - and i'm not interested in any boards and stuff he's on - lots of these guys are on boards. I want to know why he'd make a great RFC president in your opinion.
Well froarsy, if we're going to start diggin up the past, there's a whole trail of posts by you on BF throughout the entire year demanding to know what was going on down at Punt Rd, and accusing Casey of being a dictator. And not too many argued with you cos you were right.
I dont think Macek is going to be a great president. I just want the current president to be held accountable for the past 5 years.
There is a lot wrong with what's going on down at Punt Rd. And all of a sudden ppl think that Miller and Wallace will save us. They wont. For a club to be successful, everything needs to work, starting right at the top. And the Casey administration has proven over the past 5 years that it is a bunch of losers. In fact, it is the worst ever board to run the RFC. We can point fingers at the Ian Wilson board sending the club to the brink in the 80s, but they had also delivered presmierships to this club. Neville Crowe saved the club. Daphne got us financially strong and memberships flourished as well as corporate sponserships.
Clinto Casey has set the club back financially to where it was 20 years ago. $2m loss, something we havent had for a long time, and a wooden spoon.
I am extremely disappointed that others didnt run. There's alot of quality Richmond ppl around that should have put their hands up but didnt. If its Macek, so be it. At least we wont be losing money with him running things.
-
I'm not voting for Casey if I get the choice of candidates - what's your point there, 1980. I have never supported the guy and i never will as an individual. When did i say i would? But if it is a case of voting against one ticket and the other ticket, i will have to choose Casey's based on the fact that there are four guys who have been there before as i said in my last post - and based on the fact that Schwab and Welsh allegedly wanted Macek off the board the last time he was on. I need to be really convinced to vote for Macek if i get a chance to vote for the individuals - and so far i'm not. But i hear a lot a hoopla, as if he's the great saviour - he had his chance when he was last on the board, and as i said before, everyone 'ALLEGEDLY" thought he stunk!
-
Well you're entitled to your opinion, and your vote.
But if you apllied as much scrutiny to Casey over the past 5 years, as you are to Macek and the rest, you'd probably end up where I sit :P
-
I'll get back to you 1980 - so flat out here - but i'm not criticising you. Like you, i want info on all the candidates, what they can offer, what they've done in the past. That's why i think it's so important to not vote along ticket lines, so we can actually vote in the best candidates. It appears so far, we will not be given that opportunity and that is what is peeing me off most. If we did vote along those lilnes, Casey, Schwab ,Welsh and Macek wouldn't have a snowball's if i had my say. But as it is at the moment, for me, Casey gets the nod.
-
Oh boy ::)
Neither party are any good.
-
If we did vote along those lilnes [ed. individually], Casey, Schwab ,Welsh and Macek wouldn't have a snowball's if i had my say.
I'm in the same boat as froars. Please no failed ex-board members!
The main problem I have with all of them is although they may great wraps as businessmen in their respective fields outside the Club, they have demonstrated over time in past and current positions on the board that they have very little and inadequate understanding of the RFC's core business - football - to be board members. They continually overrated us and hence expected unrealistic results that we continually and obviously failed to achieve (that is changing). They were all on boards that made promises of major changes that never eventuated (until now). They went for quick fixes because they caved in to outside influences that were as niave about running a modern footy club as they were (until now). Those who were and want to be on the board due to their footy experience haven't played football for 20 years and before the modern footy environment and its pressures existed. They show(ed) no understanding of the key aspects of modern footy - attracting a top CEO, attracting a top coach, recruiting top young players via the draft, having a TPP that rewards individual performances realistically yet provides team depth - until now (despite the jury still being out in some regards as time will tell).
Finanically we were better off 5 years ago but IMO we were worse off on-field. No one wanted to coach us because the coach solely got the blame for the mess the Club was in so we ended up with Danny by default. We believed were weren't as bad as we were and rewarded our core players with even bigger contracts despite not making the finals in 4 years and finishing 13th. Our most consistent player in Cambo wanted to go to the Roos because he thought the Club was a joke and had no faith in the people running it at that time (as opposed to Otto who is leaving for $). Richmond has been a basket case for 20+ years not just the last 5!
As for Schwab, he clearly said yesterday he would pay Otto his "market value". Well market value is overpriced b/w $400-500K based on the numbers bandied around by the Cats, Roos and Swans.
Oh boy
Neither party are any good.
Sadly so true :'(
-
Well said MT.
Maybe neither party is any good, but we may have to decide between them who will take us into the futrue.
What I don’t understand is how we are ever going to move out of the past and into the future if all we do is dig up dirt on either party.
They are both flawed and probably as bad as one another, if we really get down to it. But what good would any of that do?
In the event that one of these parties, or a combination of the two, is going to play a part on the RFC Board, then the only way I can see out of this is to determine who has the capacity and ability to take us into the future. Clearly, that's how you think MT. :thumbsup
The fact that people stuffed up in the past isn’t reason enough to suggest they are incapable of taking us forward, is it? Especially if they show the ability to change and get into action to quickly and effectively get things done.
However, if all they do is fumble and bumble their way through the whole process of launching their attack and in the process cause more turmoil than is absolutely necessary, then you have to question their motives and ability to get things done. Maybe I have the blinkers on here, but wouldn’t you question that?
From the outset, I have been opposed to the alternative ticket, mainly because they chose this course of action to begin with. If I appear bias it is because this is a divisive way of going about things and causes disruption that RFC doesn’t need now or at any time. It is the way we have resolved issues in the past and we should know by now that it resolves absolutely nothing, so I am against it. And since Schwab and co began their campaign, they have done nothing to suggest they are a viable alternative. If anything, they have demonstrated the opposite.
I don’t see how a decision can be reached by determining who has committed the least number of sins, because that’s never going to help us in the future. But their ability to bring about change and make things happen, quickly and effectively can.
-
The fact that people stuffed up in the past isn’t reason enough to suggest they are incapable of taking us forward, is it? Especially if they show the ability to change and get into action to quickly and effectively get things done.
A good start would be to tell us what things they would do differently than was done in the past. I can't imagine they'd have kept Frawley and not appointed Wallace. I can't imagine they wouldn't have appointed Miller. I can't imagine they would have given Ottens his money - or would they? Would they have sacked Frawley mid contract and done the Richmond thing as we've done for so long in the past. If Casey has done anything, he has managed to bring back a little bit of credibility when it comes to sacking coaches, and maybe that's one of the reasons we got Wallace. He saw the support Frawley got and thought, well, at least i'll be backed from the top.
Ah, but two of them were on the board when these decisions and good things happened. But they were also there when our finances started going arsse up. Can't have it both ways. Just wanna know what they would have done differently, and if Casey was such an authoritarian, then maybe he should take credit for the good things, seeing as he is being discredited with all the bad things that are happening.
PS: Can anyone tell me how much of the $2mil loss was due to poker machine revenue going down as a result of the Vic govt's decision to ban smoking?
-
PS: Can anyone tell me how much of the $2mil loss was due to poker machine revenue going down as a result of the Vic govt's decision to ban smoking?
Froars,
The accounts for 2004 have not been finalised - the club's financial years doesn't finish until 31/10/04. So until they are relased probably late December we wont know how much of the loss can be contributed to the gaming venues.
Last year (2003) gaming revenue was down on budget by $400K and our loss was $881K. Last years accounts also said that since 2001 gaming revenue had reduced by $645k
-
They are both flawed and probably as bad as one another, if we really get down to it. But what good would any of that do?
I'd guess people are just demanding a higher class of candidate given the standard of board members in the past has not be up to the task of leading our Club forward. Maybe in this election it's a futile demand given the choice but maybe over time by making board members and wannabee boards members accountable we can lift the standard and attract better people instead of leaving vacancies to those with egos.
In the event that one of these parties, or a combination of the two, is going to play a part on the RFC Board, then the only way I can see out of this is to determine who has the capacity and ability to take us into the future. Clearly, that's how you think MT. :thumbsup
:thumbsup
The fact that people stuffed up in the past isn’t reason enough to suggest they are incapable of taking us forward, is it? Especially if they show the ability to change and get into action to quickly and effectively get things done.
That's true TS but I guess what I was trying to say is if these people continually make the same mistakes and don't appear to show the ablility to change or resist change despite blind freddy knowing what needs to change then I think it's safe to say they aren't the people to take us forward. Spud being an example of that.
I don’t see how a decision can be reached by determining who has committed the least number of sins, because that’s never going to help us in the future. But their ability to bring about change and make things happen, quickly and effectively can.
Agree TS.
-
Thanks WP, that's a lot of money, and really, out of anyone's control - and i think most clubs suffered the same result.
Doesn't excuse the $2 mil+ projected loss, but certainly explains a fair chunk of it!
-
Thanks WP, that's a lot of money, and really, out of anyone's control - and i think most clubs suffered the same result.
You're right froars other clubs have suffered as well. I know it cut into the Doggies and the Bombers.
It also cut into the state government coffers too - I remember reading that the Govts tax collection from pokies dropped by over 55% after they bought in the smoking legislation :lol
-
The ability to learn from our mistakes determines how quickly we progress froars.
The blinkered vision of these people on alternative tickets shows they have no idea about learning from past mistakes, because they are trying to resolve issues in the same way as they have been created for the past 24 years.
So if Schwab and co got in they wouldn’t realise this, they would continue to make the same decisions and mistakes that have been made in the past, because they lack vision, foresight and are inflexible in their thinking.
It’s taken us all this time to work out how to stop making the same mistakes over and over again. It’s taken Casey and Miller less than 5 years to make any significant changes here, yet we’ve been making them for over two decades. They put a stop to it by not taking any notice of outside influences, factions, people in the background and all the doomsayers.
They have commenced to create the changes we badly need and some people don’t like it and no doubt have their noses out of joint because of it. Good on them I say, because at least now we have been able to attract a coach such as Terry Wallace. They can continue to make further inroads if people wake up to the fact that it’s people like Schwab and co who are living in the past, trying to resolve things by old methods that have never worked previously, but just perpetuate mediocrity. It’s thinking like theirs that has seen us become such a rabble for so long.
And it’s a new way of thinking that gives us hope.
-
If we did vote along those lilnes [ed. individually], Casey, Schwab ,Welsh and Macek wouldn't have a snowball's if i had my say.
I'm in the same boat as froars. Please no failed ex-board members!
Those who were and want to be on the board due to their footy experience haven't played football for 20 years and before the modern footy environment and its pressures existed. They show(ed) no understanding of the key aspects of modern footy - attracting a top CEO, attracting a top coach, recruiting top young players via the draft, having a TPP that rewards individual performances realistically yet provides team depth - until now (despite the jury still being out in some regards as time will tell).
What? Are you claiming Casey does understand these things?
Attracting a top CEO? Are you referring to Ian Campbell or Steve Wright who's been there for all of 5 minutes?
Attracting a top coach? Did they bother to interview Michael Malthouse or Kevin Sheedy? You can make that claim when Wallace wins his first granny, hopefully with us. Until then he's the coach Sydney didnt want.
Which top young players were recruited whilst Casey has been there? I can tell you which top young players we missed out on in preference for hacks like Hudson, Sziller, Marsh, Fletcher......
And we have been at the ceiling of our player payment quota paying thse hacks to win 7 games a year in 2002, 7 games in 2003 and the wooden spoon in 2004. And its cost us $2m in losses.
Who has been in charge whilst all this has been going on????
-
I have a suggestion 1980, you do better !
-
Well most of those are football related matters 1980. I'd say Welsh, as a former footballer and DIRECTOR OF FOOTBALL, would have had a pretty heavy say in some of those decisions. Do you not question his abilities?
In fact, most of the problems that have faced the RFC can be all traced back to onfield performance. Do you trust Welsh to try again and repeat the same errors?
-
What? Are you claiming Casey does understand these things?
1980 if you re-read my post again you'll see Casey's name listed along with the others who didn't understand. You'll also see that I said the decisions needed to move our Club forward haven't been made until now (past two months).
Attracting a top CEO? Are you referring to Ian Campbell or Steve Wright who's been there for all of 5 minutes?
Attracting a top coach? Did they bother to interview Michael Malthouse or Kevin Sheedy? You can make that claim when Wallace wins his first granny, hopefully with us. Until then he's the coach Sydney didnt want.
The current board overruled Leighton Wood getting the job automatically after what happened with Ian Campbell and appointed Wright instead after a interview process. I also said the jury is still out but signs are promising. Campbell was also appointed while Schwab and Welsh were on the board. Same goes for Brayshaw.
As for the coach. 5 years ago no one wanted to coach us. Malthouse and Thomson laughed at us. Sheedy said no to once again boost his contract as Essendon. Even Peter Schwab said no. Spud got the gig by default.
If we didn't remove that stupid clause and honoured Frawley's contract in full no matter how painful and sacked him we'd be back in the same boat.
You can't deny we got the best bloke available. Yes time will tell as I said. A flag is 4-5 years away at the very least even if we had Sheedy or Matthews. Once again signs from Wallace are promising.
Which top young players were recruited whilst Casey has been there? I can tell you which top young players we missed out on in preference for hacks like Hudson, Sziller, Marsh, Fletcher......
Yes we picked up those duds under the current admin (including Casey, Schwab and Welsh)
You can add giving up pick 8 and 24 for Hilton and Bidders. Add to that Sampson, Robbie Powell, ... oops that was the previous admin (including Macek)
Rectifying this lunacy didn't begin until last year's draft and even then we gave up our first round pick. We have 3 picks (soon to be more) in the top 20. Add these top kids to the Cogs, Newmans, Jacksons, etc and we're on our way to buidling and developing our own quality players and in numbers.
And we have been at the ceiling of our player payment quota paying thse hacks to win 7 games a year in 2002, 7 games in 2003 and the wooden spoon in 2004. And its cost us $2m in losses.
Big bucks for Daffy, Knights, Cambo and Richo when we going to finish 13th after not making the finals for 4 years ...oops the previous admin again (including Macek and Schwab)
Big bucks for Holland, Gas and Otto under current admin (including Casey, Schwab and Welsh).
Once again we did not begin to rectify this until now. Yes we've been deluding ourselves for 20+ years and it's taken a $2 million loss and a wooden spoon to the make the whole Club realise we've been kidding ourselves all this time. In 5 years time we'll be saying thank god for season 2004!
Who has been in charge whilst all this has been going on????
Casey, Macek, Schwab, Welsh, ...... and basically every board for the past 20+ years. Argubly the cutural rot began eariler with the dismissal of Hafey after he lead us to 4 flags in 10 years.
-
Macek a leader ???
he would be better suited calling the numbers at the local bingo
-
Well said MT :bow
-
Tiger - I guess somebody has to keep you honest - might as well be me ;D
ps - I'm not necessarily supporting the Schwab group - just like to see some balance
Ok then RonB. I’m up for the challenge. Let me put it to you this way and feel free to let me know if my views are unbalanced. ;)
The RFC constitution, without going into it too much, you would think, was put in place to give the Club workable guidelines by which to operate, regardless of its administrators and in fairness to its members. In this way, those with the privilege of being appointed to the Board, by the Members, could make decisions for and on behalf of them.
However, for a number of years now, and for whatever reason, our footy club seems to have all but ignored that constitution and way of running things. Two or three elections in two decades perhaps points to how undemocratic this footy Club has become. The reason for that seems to be that we members don’t have any trust in the system put in place to do its job, or just don’t understand why it is there. And just seem content to allow rebels to dictate terms for us and have our say for us.
Even though, if followed, we can ensure that our Board is run democratically, whereby the Club’s members, each year, have the opportunity to nominate for the Board and/or vote others on and off the Board.
Instead of following these simple and effective guidelines that take away the ego factor associated with rebel groups and others, members have unwittingly allowed such people, to take matters into their own hands. On members’ behalf, so they tell us, because they weren’t elected by us, they decide they know what we want and can do better, far more quickly than any guidelines can allow. The fact that none of them has ever had any success doesn’t seem to deter them or us from following them.
The reason people take this course of action and allow it is because they lack trust and if we wake up and realise why we continue to make the same mistakes, time and again, then we can finally put a stop to it. Because by having people who lack trust run our footy Club, we invite more of the same people to it. And so we will never attract the sort of people we want on the Board. Before dismissing any of this as just aimless ramble, be assured that, without trust, our footy Club can achieve nothing of significance. As evidenced by our recent past. And if we give these people credence then we only have ourselves to blame for the situation we continually find ourselves in.
One way to change that is to ignore the calls from any alternative tickets, rebel groups and whatever else out there wanting to intervene and make decisions without going through the proper procedures and should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Because these people, driven by ego and a lack of trust represent everything we don’t want in the people running our footy Club.
They think they know and can do better. But, simply because they have taken this course of action and without them needing to do anything, we know that they cannot do what they say they will do. Because, first and foremost, they lack trust. They can preach and hot gospel all they like. The simple fact is that their lack of faith gives them 0% chance of bringing meaningful, significant and sustained success to this Club.
This is merely stating a fact of life that, without trust, there are no solid foundations upon which success or anything can be built. (Upon the foundations of trust you can build anything and all it takes to destroy it is ego. Just ask the Brisbane Lions).
If we revert to running things as they should be and as they are at other well run clubs then we can easily straighten things up and ensure that, in the future, people will nominate for the Richmond Board for all the right reasons, so that we can have an even chance at success.
We have a choice as to how we want the future to be. And it is very easy to predict that future. All we need do is see what we are doing now to change things, because that determines what the future will be like.
If we continue to allow RFC to be ruled by people in the background and those who think they know better, but only serve to continually railroad the Club and further mire it where it is then we can be assured of more of the mediocrity we have become associated with.
The only real alternative is to put our faith in the system, however boring, dull, uninspiring and simple that seems. That system is there for a very good reason. And those who put it there knew what they were doing and had the faith in it that we need to regain, before we can achieve anything to be proud of.
If anyone has the opportunity, read Miller’s letter to Pahoff, it will make the point better than I can and might mean a bit more.
-
I have a suggestion 1980, you do better !
I know my limitations, and Casey should know his. If not before he took the job, now that he's been at it for 5 years.
-
Macek a leader ???
he would be better suited calling the numbers at the local bingo
Macek: founded County investment management; $14b in funds, sold it for 100m to Invesco a couple of years ago. Currently director at Telstra and Wesfarmers.
And you're saying he's better suited to the local bingo. Laughable.
And which boards do you sit on?
-
What? Are you claiming Casey does understand these things?
1980 if you re-read my post again you'll see Casey's name listed along with the others who didn't understand. You'll also see that I said the decisions needed to move our Club forward haven't been made until now (past two months).
Attracting a top CEO? Are you referring to Ian Campbell or Steve Wright who's been there for all of 5 minutes?
Attracting a top coach? Did they bother to interview Michael Malthouse or Kevin Sheedy? You can make that claim when Wallace wins his first granny, hopefully with us. Until then he's the coach Sydney didnt want.
The current board overruled Leighton Wood getting the job automatically after what happened with Ian Campbell and appointed Wright instead after a interview process. I also said the jury is still out but signs are promising. Campbell was also appointed while Schwab and Welsh were on the board. Same goes for Brayshaw.
As for the coach. 5 years ago no one wanted to coach us. Malthouse and Thomson laughed at us. Sheedy said no to once again boost his contract as Essendon. Even Peter Schwab said no. Spud got the gig by default.
If we didn't remove that stupid clause and honoured Frawley's contract in full no matter how painful and sacked him we'd be back in the same boat.
You can't deny we got the best bloke available. Yes time will tell as I said. A flag is 4-5 years away at the very least even if we had Sheedy or Matthews. Once again signs from Wallace are promising.
Which top young players were recruited whilst Casey has been there? I can tell you which top young players we missed out on in preference for hacks like Hudson, Sziller, Marsh, Fletcher......
Yes we picked up those duds under the current admin (including Casey, Schwab and Welsh)
You can add giving up pick 8 and 24 for Hilton and Bidders. Add to that Sampson, Robbie Powell, ... oops that was the previous admin (including Macek)
Rectifying this lunacy didn't begin until last year's draft and even then we gave up our first round pick. We have 3 picks (soon to be more) in the top 20. Add these top kids to the Cogs, Newmans, Jacksons, etc and we're on our way to buidling and developing our own quality players and in numbers.
And we have been at the ceiling of our player payment quota paying thse hacks to win 7 games a year in 2002, 7 games in 2003 and the wooden spoon in 2004. And its cost us $2m in losses.
Big bucks for Daffy, Knights, Cambo and Richo when we going to finish 13th after not making the finals for 4 years ...oops the previous admin again (including Macek and Schwab)
Big bucks for Holland, Gas and Otto under current admin (including Casey, Schwab and Welsh).
Once again we did not begin to rectify this until now. Yes we've been deluding ourselves for 20+ years and it's taken a $2 million loss and a wooden spoon to the make the whole Club realise we've been kidding ourselves all this time. In 5 years time we'll be saying thank god for season 2004!
Who has been in charge whilst all this has been going on????
Casey, Macek, Schwab, Welsh, ...... and basically every board for the past 20+ years. Argubly the cutural rot began eariler with the dismissal of Hafey after he lead us to 4 flags in 10 years.
Well, you're persisting on grouping Casey, Welsh, Swab and conveniently ommitting that the reason Swab and Welsh left the board is because they claim they had no input into and insight of decisions, and Casey made all the decisions on his own without consulting the rest of the board.
You're entitled to not believe them, but this is the reason they've given for leaving the Casey board and challenging it.
I for one believe that Casey has been running the place at his own whim, which is why I will vote against him.
-
I'm voting for Casey
stuff Macek and Co.
LOL
-
Well, you're persisting on grouping Casey, Welsh, Swab and conveniently ommitting that the reason Swab and Welsh left the board is because they claim they had no input into and insight of decisions, and Casey made all the decisions on his own without consulting the rest of the board.
You're entitled to not believe them, but this is the reason they've given for leaving the Casey board and challenging it.
I for one believe that Casey has been running the place at his own whim, which is why I will vote against him.
Fair enough 1980.
The reason why I find it hard to believe Schwab and Welsh is because they were on the board for over 5 years and yet somehow we are meant to believe in all that time they were not responsible for any poor or failed decisions.
Welsh I find really strange. He now claims the same grievences as Schwab yet at the time it was reported by Caro (who can't stand Casey btw) The Age 24/3/2004:
"Jewell's replacement as football director, 1980 premiership player Peter Welsh, quit last week after the Tigers' last pre-season game with the basic excuse that it was all too hard. Welsh is not a Frawley fan, nor is he a Casey fan.
Football operations boss Greg Miller pleaded with him to stay but Welsh said that all of a sudden he realised he didn't have the time to sit in the box with Frawley each week and work with the football department. Welsh believes he is doing the decent thing by reaching that conclusion now and not midway through the year."
Also if he had these same grievences which existed before the AGM in late January and was considering resigning why did he ask to be re-elected without a peep out of him about these grievences?!
-
Tiger Spirit
You wrote:
" Let me put it to you this way and feel free to let me know if my views are unbalanced"
Tiger - I didn't say that your views were unbalanced.
I wrote the post that you were replying to for three reasons:
1. You implied that the current board did well to contain the budget blowout that they were actually responsible for - I can't see much virtue in that, and it was the line run by Brendan in his interview with KB.
2. You claimed that Schwab said his group would pay Ottens what he wanted - he didn't.
3. Other posters were posting :bow tributes to these comments and I wanted to place an alternative opinion for the sake of balance.
That is not to say that your opinions were unbalanced - if you have two alternative opinions you get balance (relatively) Compre?
Now with regard to the rest of your post - hmm - I think I'll have to get back to you.... :-\
-
Well, you're persisting on grouping Casey, Welsh, Swab and conveniently ommitting that the reason Swab and Welsh left the board is because they claim they had no input into and insight of decisions, and Casey made all the decisions on his own without consulting the rest of the board.
You're entitled to not believe them, but this is the reason they've given for leaving the Casey board and challenging it.
I for one believe that Casey has been running the place at his own whim, which is why I will vote against him.
Fair enough 1980.
The reason why I find it hard to believe Schwab and Welsh is because they were on the board for over 5 years and yet somehow we are meant to believe in all that time they were not responsible for any poor or failed decisions.
Welsh I find really strange. He now claims the same grievences as Schwab yet at the time it was reported by Caro (who can't stand Casey btw) The Age 24/3/2004:
"Jewell's replacement as football director, 1980 premiership player Peter Welsh, quit last week after the Tigers' last pre-season game with the basic excuse that it was all too hard. Welsh is not a Frawley fan, nor is he a Casey fan.
Football operations boss Greg Miller pleaded with him to stay but Welsh said that all of a sudden he realised he didn't have the time to sit in the box with Frawley each week and work with the football department. Welsh believes he is doing the decent thing by reaching that conclusion now and not midway through the year."
Also if he had these same grievences which existed before the AGM in late January and was considering resigning why did he ask to be re-elected without a peep out of him about these grievences?!
No doubt this would all be easier to digest, and the stories from swab/welsh about leaving the board because they'd given up on trying to change it from within, would have much more credibility if they'd done so much earlier.
No doubt that its difficult to believe they tried for 5 years to change things from within, and think they're better off now trying to change things from outside.
Maybe I've been following this a bit longer than most, but there has not been a key decision made at our football club in the past 5 years that was not driven and implemented by Casey. Seems the board was happy for things to go this way for a long time, and a few have now decided that its not the way to go.
For me, Casey has not done such a great job that he should continue to make all the decisions and appointments without involving the other directors. And having an election will send a clear message from the members that this is not a one man club. Until the challenge, its been a one man club. The Clinton Casey club. IMO he has been unaccountable to the board and more importantly the members.
That for me, will be much more important than the question of who will make a better president, Macek or Casey.
Everyone can cry all they want that swab and Welsh were on the board for 5 years, but like the rest of the humps, they're just bums on seats making up the quota. The direction and decisions are all Casey, and I dont want Casey to continue to make them all. He's not done such a great job. Swab & Welsh dont have strong credibilities, but its not as if Casey's appointments like Anthony Mitten to fill the vacancies are any better. Another yes man as far as I'm concerned. And after the challenge, more yes men will be put in place.
-
Well most of those are football related matters 1980. I'd say Welsh, as a former footballer and DIRECTOR OF FOOTBALL, would have had a pretty heavy say in some of those decisions. Do you not question his abilities?
In fact, most of the problems that have faced the RFC can be all traced back to onfield performance. Do you trust Welsh to try again and repeat the same errors?
Wasnt it you that wanted to kick out Casey and replace him with Leon Daphne earlier in the year? Or was it Neville Crowe? :P
-
Yes, it was. What's your point?
-
Fair comment RonB, thanks for the response. I could argue, debate, dissect and discuss forever and a day, every little detail, about everything said on this topic, but what good would it do?
People get so caught up with the trivial details such as who said and did what. To be perfectly honest, and in the overall scheme of things, they really don’t matter.
All I’m concerned about is that RFC members get a say on how the Club is run, instead of being dictated to by outside influences. If people wanted to get caught up in every little thing I’ve said on this, no doubt they could pick a lot of holes in there, if they were that way inclined.
But while they were doing that, they’d miss the whole point of what is being said.
If people could instead look at the bigger picture, rather than worrying about who said and did what then the decision of what to do in this situation would become clear. As it is, some find it difficult to decide who to trust or believe and with good reason.
-
Hey 1980, you argument for Macek hold no substance, making millions with someone elses money doesnt mean you can be president of a football club ::)
Ian Dicker is a multi-millionare and have alook at the mess the Hawks are in.
Ditto with the Billionaire bloke Paleman with Brisbane back in the 80,s
AsI have said before, have you ever met Macek ? If you have , you would know what I mean, personality plus! ::)
As for which side of the fence I sit on, I am all for change, change for the better .Problem is that if actually knew the people in the alternative ticket, you would realise that they are not the answer.
All the energy that is wasted on the matter is a shame. At the end of the day the CEO runs the joint and the coach coaches the team, pretty simple I reckon.
Decisions have been made by the current board ,rightfully or wrongfully, there is a new CEO and NEW coach, the club is in there hands, irrevelent to any decisions the board makes in the future.
And please dont anyone argue about losing 2m. 2 m in the context of things isnt a big deal. Win a few more games next year, cut back on expenses and you are back infront. The current board has commenced this process of cutting back expenses and only spending money that they can afford .
-
Yes, it was. What's your point?
Froarsy, that is my point ;)
-
Maybe I've been following this a bit longer than most, but there has not been a key decision made at our football club in the past 5 years that was not driven and implemented by Casey. Seems the board was happy for things to go this way for a long time, and a few have now decided that its not the way to go.
1980, I have been following "this" a long long time - since the end of 2001 to be precise.
Every year without fail I get the full financials of the club and go through them with a "fine tooth comb" as they say. I think I have a very good understanding of the structure of our Football Club, where the money has been lost, what's been done well and what's been done badly.
But I have to ask and I don't mean it to sound condescending but regarding..."but there has not been a key decision made at our football club in the past 5 years that was not driven and implemented by Casey"
How do you know?
-
Froarsy, that is my point
Well when Leon or Neville nominate, come and talk about that - it might be relevant to your argument then!
-
Hey 1980, you argument for Macek hold no substance, making millions with someone elses money doesnt mean you can be president of a football club ::)
Ian Dicker is a multi-millionare and have alook at the mess the Hawks are in.
Ditto with the Billionaire bloke Paleman with Brisbane back in the 80,s
AsI have said before, have you ever met Macek ? If you have , you would know what I mean, personality plus! ::)
As for which side of the fence I sit on, I am all for change, change for the better .Problem is that if actually knew the people in the alternative ticket, you would realise that they are not the answer.
All the energy that is wasted on the matter is a shame. At the end of the day the CEO runs the joint and the coach coaches the team, pretty simple I reckon.
Decisions have been made by the current board ,rightfully or wrongfully, there is a new CEO and NEW coach, the club is in there hands, irrevelent to any decisions the board makes in the future.
And please dont anyone argue about losing 2m. 2 m in the context of things isnt a big deal. Win a few more games next year, cut back on expenses and you are back infront. The current board has commenced this process of cutting back expenses and only spending money that they can afford .
One thing to say being successful in business doesnt mean you will be successful running a footy club, entirely another to say the guy's not qualified to run the local bingo.
For a guy thats sits on boards, I'm surprised you reckon the CEO runs the club. The CEO in any business is accountable to the board, which is accountable to shareholders, or in this case the members.
And if the board is doing stupid things and losing $2m of the members money, the footy dept has less options to recruit key players. Something we're seeing right now.
-
Froarsy, that is my point
Well when Leon or Neville nominate, come and talk about that - it might be relevant to your argument then!
Arent you afraid of being accused of supporting failed ex-board members?
-
Maybe I've been following this a bit longer than most, but there has not been a key decision made at our football club in the past 5 years that was not driven and implemented by Casey. Seems the board was happy for things to go this way for a long time, and a few have now decided that its not the way to go.
1980, I have been following "this" a long long time - since the end of 2001 to be precise.
Every year without fail I get the full financials of the club and go through them with a "fine tooth comb" as they say. I think I have a very good understanding of the structure of our Football Club, where the money has been lost, what's been done well and what's been done badly.
But I have to ask and I don't mean it to sound condescending but regarding..."but there has not been a key decision made at our football club in the past 5 years that was not driven and implemented by Casey"
How do you know?
I've got no beef with you WP or anyone else that supports the current board for what they consider to be valid reasons. And there's a few ppl here that have obviously thought it through and decided they dont like the alternative. And fair enough.
But I've got a big problem with ppl that were dirty on Casey all year and then changed their minds since Terry Wallace was appointed as coach. And there's a few of them around too.
Anyway, let me ask you. Why do you think swab & welsh resigned if not for the reason that Casey was making decisions without consulting his board. Did they resign because of ego? Do you really believe they didnt resign because there are many problems at the club the board is either unaware of, or ignoring. Do you really believe they resigned because of personality clash with Casey or ego? Cos if you're right, this is a club that can never be fixed.
-
Arent you afraid of being accused of supporting failed ex-board members?
1980, I’d be more afraid of being looked at as narrow minded, having only channel vision for something, and not being able to look about and see all the options.
And the real picture isn’t that good, but I am yet to be convinced that the other ticket has anything better to offer than we’ve already got. If Leon Daphne was running tomorrow, I’d probably jump ship again, because I’ve seen what a great leader he is, and I’d think he’d go hand in hand with the current administration that we’ve currently got.
Okay Casey. I do not like the man, I never have – and probably never will. That’s personal, because I don’t like Essendon supporters running my club. But neither do I like people like Schwab who come to this club thinking they own it just because their father was a Richmond great. Same with Caro, Rhett, anyone who thinks they own this club more than me, you or anyone else. They may not be that way, but that’s the impression I get. But none of those reasons would sway me from voting for them if I thought they were the best people for the job.
I also don’t like the way Casey shies away when things get tough and doesn’t face supporters back at the club, or in the media – generally only when forced to do it. But hey, I didn’t see Schwab or Welsh or anyone else make speeches when they were there either. Maybe Casey was entertaining the corporates or something he probably thought was more important – but it still left me feeling that me and everyone else needed things explained. I sometimes saw Schwab having a beer after a game, but he never got up and said anything. But since I’ve been whinging about no presence at after matches, I have noticed a few more directors and Miller coming back – not making speeches, but talking to the supporters. I would rather have Miller there any day than Casey.
You can call me someone who jumps ship – but tell me when I ever supported Macek, Schwab, Welsh, Humphris or any of the new people on that ticket. I’ve met a couple of them, and they are really nice people – even had dinner with one of them on his flash boat lol – but we’re talking about the future of the Richmond Football Club, something that is very important to me – and you and everyone else – and I won’t be taking any vote I make lightly.
And if that means I jump ship every five minutes, so be it – I can live with that and what you think of me. I care the least what you think of me or anyone else for that matter. But I do care how you vote – and whether that’s Schwab, Casey or whoever that you haven’t been tainted by my opinion, just because I appear to be jumping ship, or whatever. Prefer you actually did the same exercise and weighed the pros and cons of both sides.
I can’t weigh the other side yet, because they haven’t told me a darn thing about what they would do differently and many of the people on that ticket are just as responsible IMO for the financial and football woes we’re in at the moment. And if it came down to the Schwab ticket v the Casey ticket, at the moment I would pick the Casey ticket easily, because he appointed Miller, he appointed Wallace, and he finally got rid of Danny. But if I had to pick individuals, Casey, Schwab, Welsh and Humphris wouldn’t be there either.
Hate to say this, but even the drover’s dog lol would be able to lead the RFC if our football fortunes turned around. I like the direction things are going with the youth policy they seem to be adopting, away from the hack mentality. Seems like everything is on track, and just needs patience for a couple of years to see these kids come good. And when they come good, it wouldn’t matter who was in charge, the revenue will flow and flow and flow. Are Schwab and Welsh responsible for that – no, they jumped ship one week prior to the beginning of the season. At the time, I thought they didn’t have much regard for the club when they left them in the lurch down two directors, and I still think that way. Plus I never saw any of the things they did while they were there – and I can’t hack them saying they were kept in the dark. Doesn’t show great strength or leadership – great leaders would have demanded more involvement.
So, all I can say, is I am just as confused as everyone else. But I really don’t care what you think of me if I jump ship 50 times – I do so for the one reason that when I really do make my final vote, I do so for the reasons I think are the best for the RFC.
-
Maybe I've been following this a bit longer than most, but there has not been a key decision made at our football club in the past 5 years that was not driven and implemented by Casey. Seems the board was happy for things to go this way for a long time, and a few have now decided that its not the way to go.
Everyone can cry all they want that swab and Welsh were on the board for 5 years, but like the rest of the humps, they're just bums on seats making up the quota. The direction and decisions are all Casey, and I dont want Casey to continue to make them all. He's not done such a great job. Swab & Welsh dont have strong credibilities, but its not as if Casey's appointments like Anthony Mitten to fill the vacancies are any better. Another yes man as far as I'm concerned. And after the challenge, more yes men will be put in place.
Even if that's so then don't you think that's just as damning of Schwab, Welsh and the other board members as Casey? That everyone was happy to have such lack of accountability and process (word of 2004 ;D ) to continue for so long ??? Casey is just one of nine and could have easily been out-voted.
-
Anyway, let me ask you. Why do you think swab & welsh resigned if not for the reason that Casey was making decisions without consulting his board. Did they resign because of ego? Do you really believe they didnt resign because there are many problems at the club the board is either unaware of, or ignoring. Do you really believe they resigned because of personality clash with Casey or ego? Cos if you're right, this is a club that can never be fixed.
Who knows why they resigned 1980 - the reasons have changed since they first quit.
When he quit Peter Welsh said it was nothing sinister - he just didn't have the time. He had plenty of time originally because he asked all members to vote for him January and as a result he was re-elected. However, by mid March he was gone. What gives? Then he jumps on Schwabs ticket and says it is all about corporate governance - well which is it and how can you believe it?
Then we have Brendan Schwab who was on the board when Leon Daphne was president. Now the Daphne board was responsible for amongst other things approving the massive contracts to Daffy, Knights, Campbell and Richardson and giving Jeff Giecshen a contract extension in 1998. But for some strange reason we have to forget about that because well they all made that decision together - so it must be OK because it is in the past. Schwab then found himself on the board with Clinton Casey - vice president no less. Now I have said this before but before 2003 Schwab averages 8.5 board meetings a year out of 12 (2003 he managed to attend 11 of 12) so is it any wonder he isn't aware of things? He makes a decision to quit and instead of speaking directly to the members - conducts his campaign through the media, predominatly the The Age :o. what a surprise.
Schwab then resigns in early 2003 and blames everything that is wrong with the Club on Clinton Casey and coveniently removes himself of any decision that has been made by the board of the RFC for the last 5 years.
Well I am sorry 1980, as a company Director you cannot and should not do that.
-
Then we have Brendan Schwab who was on the board when Leon Daphne was president. Now the Daphne board was responsible for amongst other things approving the massive contracts to Daffy, Knights, Campbell and Richardson and giving Jeff Giecshen a contract extension in 1998. But for some strange reason we have to forget about that because well they all made that decision together - so it must be OK because it is in the past. Schwab then found himself on the board with Clinton Casey - vice president no less. Now I have said this before but before 2003 Schwab averages 8.5 board meetings a year out of 12 (2003 he managed to attend 11 of 12) so is it any wonder he isn't aware of things? He makes a decision to quit and instead of speaking directly to the members - conducts his campaign through the media, predominatly the The Age :o. what a surprise.
Schwab then resigns in early 2003 and blames everything that is wrong with the Club on Clinton Casey and coveniently removes himself of any decision that has been made by the board of the RFC for the last 5 years.
Well I am sorry 1980, as a company Director you cannot and should not do that.
You're absolutely 100% right. They're all as bad as each other. They're all responsible for the mess of the past 5 years. So all of em should sod off. Including Casey. Especially Casey.
Most ppl would argue that Knights and Richardson are Richmond champions. JohnF can put up a very compelling argument that Campbell has been our most consistent player since that contract was signed. OUt of the 4, only Daffy failed to live up to expectations.
We were never in as bad a mess when Daphne was president. Not financially. No wooden spoons either. And he had the dignity to resign and give the job over to someone else. He put the club before himself. Casey wont.
-
You're absolutely 100% right. They're all as bad as each other. They're all responsible for the mess of the past 5 years. So all of em should sod off.
They all could, if, and only if, enough Richmond members, with appropriate credentials, who are genuinely concerned about the long-term future and welfare of the Club would nominate for the Board, each and every year.
This would prevent the Board being filled with people who get on there by feeling compelled to do so, because no one else was interested, or because of some Board spill where no election takes place.
We think the only solution to this is between Casey and the alternative ticket. But if enough independents nominate and members are unhappy with the current lot, at least three Directors can be voted off this year. And if each and every year we have an election then we can finally have a properly constituted and responsible Board that no one can argue with.
Having an alternative ticket take over would only invite more of the same scepticism as there is now about the current Board and won’t change anything until we have a properly constituted Board where all Directors are independent and voted on by the members, rather than getting there by other means.
-
I have been unalbe to find a link to this story from Sunday's H/Sun 10/10/04. The story is titled
"Troy Given Time" by Jon Pierek.
I am staggered and disgusted :banghead but not surprised
========================================
"...Meanwhile, the rebel Richmond ticket has stepped up its bid to overthrow the board by requestiong Tiger members be given a Senate Style vote at December's annual general meeting.
Led by Charles Macek and Brendan Schwab, the rebels have requested a change to the club's constitution.
As it stands, voting members must place a tick against each individual they want on the board.
But Macek wants members to also have the opportunity of placing a tick above their preferred ticket, as voters had the opportunity of doing on their Senate form in the yesterday's ( ed:9/10/04) election. "
======================================
Don't they trust the members to make an informed and balanced choice? :banghead
-
I doubt they can change the constitution without the members voting for it WP. I can't see a lot wrong with the idea because I presume anyone who would rather select individual candidates could still do so, as is the case in a Federal election.
I take your point and agree that it's outrageous if they're going to try to change it before the upcoming election. Just wishful thinking on their part I suspect.
-
FF is correct and you need 75% majority to change the constitution.
6.12 Alteration of Articles
No new Article or alteration of any Article shall be made except by a three-fourths majority of votes recorded either in person or by proxy at an Annual General Meeting or an Extraordinary General Meeting called for the purpose in accordance with the Act.
We would need two elections (and more unnecessary money spent) for this to happen. An EGM to change the constitution then the general vote at the AGM. The Club would also need to change the part that says 3 positions up for election to 9 unless the "ticket" box only contains 3 people.
I can't see this happening.
-
I doubt they can change the constitution without the members voting for it WP.
Agree FF - I know it cannot be change without members agreeing to it. I just find it odd, disappointing and disgraceful that they would try to change it now - it comes across as "vote for us a as ticket or not at all" as well as appearing like they really don't trust the memebers to vote for individuals.
We would need two elections (and more unnecessary money spent) for this to happen. An EGM to change the constitution then the general vote at the AGM. The Club would also need to change the part that says 3 positions up for election to 9 unless the "ticket" box only contains 3 people.
This is the part that angers me the most. Here is a group that goes on and on about the Clbus finanaces but seems prepared to waste money the Club doesn't have on changes to the constitution solely to serve ther own purposes. Is this change needed? Clearly NO - so why?
-
Just read the papers why on holidays, cant beleive the alternative ticket want to change the "goal posts" .
-
Just read the papers why on holidays, cant beleive the alternative ticket want to change the "goal posts" .
I can believe it Jackstar. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( Because they've shown all along that they are in it for themselves and not the Richmond Football Club or its members. For them to want the constitution changed in this way is testament to their self-interest in this whole saga.
I agree that the Constitution needs to evolve with the times, but not just to suit those who want to take over the Club, as this alternative ticket seems hellbent on wanting to do. I wish they'd knick off out of our footy club and stop embarrassing RFC with their total incompetence. :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead
Anything wrong with nominating for the Board, via an election, as they do at most Clubs? >:( >:( >:( :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead
Knick off the lot of ya. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
When does all this madness come to a head? With Casey on holidays, have the remaining board members met up or will they wait until Casey returns?
-
Interesting times ahead. ;)
-
Interesting times ahead. ;)
Me thinks a PM is in order lol ;)
It must be close to knowing what is happening next. It would be nice if us members were told ::).
-
Tiger rebels face uncertain election
19 October 2004
Herald Sun
Mark Stevens
THE Richmond rebel ticket has been stymied in its bid for an "us against them" election at the club's December annual general meeting.
Would-be president Charles Macek and his group were hoping to give the members a simple choice between the rebels and president Clinton Casey's board, but the constitution does not allow for a straight-out fight.
Under the rules, any candidates -- including those from outside the two groups -- are thrown together on the betting form and listed alphabetically.
That means a poll at the annual general meeting -- likely to be on December 21 -- could result in a board made up of a mixture of Macek and Casey's men.
Macek yesterday made it clear that would be an unpalatable outcome, saying the group would meet this week to discuss other options to sweep to power.
"We had read the constitution. The club's advice is consistent with the constitution," Macek said.
"We were hoping there may be some flexibility in the way it would operate.
"I don't see it as a major hurdle or hiccup at all -- just a clarification."
Macek said his group would discuss a "number of possible scenarios".
"It's not necessarily a major setback because the alternative to an AGM is an extraordinary general meeting," Macek said.
"In an EGM you can, through the way you present resolutions, achieve a desired outcome.
"But that, of course, involves an extra meeting. That is not necessarily desirable because it does involve extra expense."
Asked if an EGM was more likely, Macek said: "I'm not going to speculate on what we do . . . it's something we need to discuss and consider."
Macek's group has also not given up hope of achieving a "negotiated settlement" with the Casey board.
"In recent times he (Casey) has said publicly he wouldn't be prepared to do that with the current group.
"Whether he's changed his view, one wouldn't know."
Casey returns from an overseas trip on Friday.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,11113294%255E20322,00.html
-
I must be missing something here as IMO the RFC constitution is fairly straightforward in what can and/or can't be done. The alternative ticket don't seem to understand it though. On Sept 28 the alternative ticket were demanding the whole board resign otherwise they would definitely force a EGM despite a forced whole board resignation not being allowed under the constitution. Then it was the alternative ticket wanting a senate style ticket vote which again is not allowed. Now it's "we need to discuss and consider" whether to have a EGM when 3 weeks ago they said they would organize a petition and force one. Make up your minds for crying out loud ::).
ps. I thought Casey was back today?
-
To true MT - If they haven't figured these things out by now how the hell do they think they can run a footy club. :banghead
Continually talking about EGM's just puts them offside in my book. >:(
Good news is both sides have positives and negatives and RFC might end up getting a good mix out of all this. :thumbsup
What all parties must do is put RFC before themselves and thier so called aligned groups and do what is best for Richmond otherwise thier purpose of being there is just not right.
Will members end up getting thier say in this ? - if so I am there with bells and boxing gloves on ;D
-
Under the rules, any candidates -- including those from outside the two groups -- are thrown together on the betting form and listed alphabetically.
That means a poll at the annual general meeting -- likely to be on December 21 -- could result in a board made up of a mixture of Macek and Casey's men.
Macek yesterday made it clear that would be an unpalatable outcome, saying the group would meet this week to discuss other options to sweep to power.
What a surprise ::). Another insult to the members of the RFC IMO. Clearly doesn't trust us to make an informed choice. Newsflash for you and your mates - if you are not prepared to accept the wishes of the members get the hell out >:(
If we the members decide we want 3 from your ticket, 3 from Casey's ticket and the balance as independants then you should accept it - if you cannot do that then you shouldn't be standing.
The rules are clear I suggest you follow them :banghead
"We had read the constitution. The club's advice is consistent with the constitution," Macek said.
:o :o :o You mean the Club actually told you the truth Charles - well I never ;D
What all parties must do is put RFC before themselves and thier so called aligned groups and do what is best for Richmond otherwise thier purpose of being there is just not right.
What - that seems so......................er.................logical and simple CUB :bow :bow :bow
It is the way it should be :thumbsup
-
WP and CUB, these people are either a regular bunch of Einsteins or an insult to people’s intelligence. If this way of electing a Board was in the spirit of the Club’s constitution then I daresay it would already be part of it and it wouldn’t need them to come along and demand changes be made to it. Changes they want made just to suit their selfish needs and because they are unable to get their own way under the current rules and guidelines of the constitution.
And mainly because they would be unable to work with others on the Board they don’t get along with, even it is for the good of the Club.
So you have to question why are they even doing this if that is the case? Isn’t that why anyone becomes a Director of the Club – to assist it in any way they can? And wouldn’t you need to put aside your own self-interests and personal issues and do what is in the best interests of the Richmond Football Club, whatever the circumstances?
The more this drags on the more they convince you they are doing this for all the wrong reasons and that they seriously have no idea. Them taking over would be the biggest balls up ever.
-
As far as I'm concerned, the club has moved on. The challengers left their run too late, and didnt come up with enough fire and tiger legends on the ticket to sufficiently motivate what is clearly a lethargic membership base. A supporter base that now deserves everything it gets from the Casey mob.
We're happy to slag off the club for 5 years of hell on the footy park, 7 wins 2002, 7 wins 2003, wooden spoon 2004. We've been screaming blue murder and posting madly how pi$$d we are. But when it comes to kicking them out, we lose our nerve.
I wont be voting for either side. I think both sides arent good enough for the RFC. I'll go back into my little hole and dream about the Graeme Richmond days. But I will be all over anyone that has been supporting Casey and changes their mind after we lose a couple of games, or another $2m.
-
But I will be all over anyone that has been supporting Casey and changes their mind after we lose a couple of games, or another $2m.
Don't pick on me, i'm sensitive lol
I'm sick of the whole thing anyway - just want the footy back!
And of course we're going to lose games - probably lots of them in the next couple of years - we're gonna have very young side. So good on ya 1980, you just lie in wait like a spider and you can tell us so lol.
-
As far as I'm concerned, the club has moved on. The challengers left their run too late, and didnt come up with enough fire and tiger legends on the ticket to sufficiently motivate what is clearly a lethargic membership base. A supporter base that now deserves everything it gets from the Casey mob.
On the contrary I think the membership base is anything but lethargic on this issue.
I don't think it is fair or reasonable to label members lethargic just because they are not jumping for joy with the alternative that's been presented or because they don't believe in change for the sake of it. People are not being lethargic because they are trying to base their decision on what they believe is best for the RFC - something which these alternatives seem to have a major issue with. How can you say that membership lethargic simply because they may choose to vote for the incumbents. If people really believe they are the best options, then that is their and the memberships choice.
This issue has stirred alot of passion that has been clearly missing for a long time. We had an election at the start of this year for 3 positions and for memory only 6000 members voted - now that's lethargy with a capital "L".
I believe that there is a vast number of members that want an election and to be honest we deserve an election but it is not right for people wanting to change the rules to serve their own purposes.
Any member who votes is being anything but lethargic
-
As far as I'm concerned, the club has moved on. The challengers left their run too late, and didnt come up with enough fire and tiger legends on the ticket to sufficiently motivate what is clearly a lethargic membership base. A supporter base that now deserves everything it gets from the Casey mob.
I agree the club has moved on (and in the right direction) and the challengers left their run too late (have they actually started ???). However the blame for that is squarely on the shoulders of the alternative ticket. They have had months now to put forward and explain their own plans for the future of the RFC that is distinct from the current board yet still they haven't and they continue to rely on the "anti-Casey" and change for change's sake factor. After 20 years of one incompentent board replacing another, that's just not good enough. It really sums them up that despite the anger towards Casey, the alternative ticket has fumbled, stumbled and flip-flopped their way through this whole off-field debate. I disagree that the membership is lethargic although they're probably sick to death of the political grandstanding as it's gone on and on and on :P. Any decent alternative would have long ago grabbed the members attention and enthusiasm for something better and Casey would not have a chance.
-
As far as I'm concerned, the club has moved on. The challengers left their run too late, and didnt come up with enough fire and tiger legends on the ticket …
You can be upset with us for our stance 1980, but doesn’t that comment there tell us that the challengers are obviously incapable of taking on the job they claim to have a right to?
And hasn’t the writing been on the wall with this group, right from the start, for anyone prepared to read it?
These people don’t have to be on the Board now to show they aren’t the answer because, as a group, they haven’t even been able to generate enough enthusiasm and momentum for their own cause. And even the changes they have made haven’t made any difference.
So if they aren’t even capable of running their own campaign in a way that suggests they know what they are doing, and this is the best they can do, then how could anyone be confident that they could possibly have what it takes to run the Richmond Football Club?
It’s not just a case of “better the devil you know”, because what can it possibly achieve to vote out one group only to replace it with another group that clearly has no idea? Why would we do that?
Most past mistakes aren’t enough reason to hang, draw and quarter someone or never give them a second chance, especially if they show they can atone and move on from that. So why would we replace them with something clearly of lesser capacity and ability; not to mention narrow minded and living in the past?
Maybe things won’t turn out how we want this way either, but there’s a snow flake’s hope in hades of achieving anything of significance with the alternative group. And you only have to look at the evidence their campaign provides to know that.
Some of the individuals may have something to offer, but as a group, they just don’t seem to work. And if any of them are serious about being on the Board then they can nominate themselves at the next election.
-
As far as I'm concerned, the club has moved on. The challengers left their run too late, and didnt come up with enough fire and tiger legends on the ticket to sufficiently motivate what is clearly a lethargic membership base. A supporter base that now deserves everything it gets from the Casey mob.
How can you say that membership lethargic simply because they may choose to vote for the incumbents. If people really believe they are the best options, then that is their and the memberships choice.
I say this because many of the same ppl were screaming bloody murder on this and other boards for most of this year if not also most of last.
When it came time to kick Casey up the backside, we decided the other mob were even worst. Thankfully we dont apply the same criteria we apply to Casey to the coaching dept, or we'd be stuck with Danny Frawley for another 5 years.
Fair enough, but if you're bed in with Casey, and you think he's going to improve his performance and get us into winning ways, and deserves to stay, then dont go changing your mind for another 5 years.
Personally, I'm going to enjoy slagging him off hard and fast for the next 2 years.
-
1980, you can only vote on the people who put themselves up for election. It's not our fault no-one with much cred is putting up their hand. Half the other ticket have been there and done that before - and badly. If you want new blood, vote for the ones that haven't been there, or at least if you have to pick someone who's been there before, pick one that did a good job. I can't find one i'm afraid.
-
When it came time to kick Casey up the backside, we decided the other mob were even worst. Thankfully we dont apply the same criteria we apply to Casey to the coaching dept, or we'd be stuck with Danny Frawley for another 5 years.
Fair enough, but if you're bed in with Casey, and you think he's going to improve his performance and get us into winning ways, and deserves to stay, then dont go changing your mind for another 5 years.
I can accept that you can’t stand Casey 1980, but I don’t get it. Why would you want to make a change unless there is somebody out there that could do better and is prepared to put their hand up to take on the role? Not just anyone, but someone who could clearly handle the role and do it justice, because otherwise why change?
With the coach, Danny didn’t want to continue and we were able to find a suitable replacement. Where’s the problem in that? I’m sure if we could find an alternative for Casey the same rule would apply to him. As it stands though, it doesn’t seem that we have any better alternative, unless I’m missing something that you see and I don’t.
-
When it came time to kick Casey up the backside, we decided the other mob were even worst. Thankfully we dont apply the same criteria we apply to Casey to the coaching dept, or we'd be stuck with Danny Frawley for another 5 years.
Fair enough, but if you're bed in with Casey, and you think he's going to improve his performance and get us into winning ways, and deserves to stay, then dont go changing your mind for another 5 years.
I can accept that you can’t stand Casey 1980, but I don’t get it. Why would you want to make a change unless there is somebody out there that could do better and is prepared to put their hand up to take on the role? Not just anyone, but someone who could clearly handle the role and do it justice, because otherwise why change?
With the coach, Danny didn’t want to continue and we were able to find a suitable replacement. Where’s the problem in that? I’m sure if we could find an alternative for Casey the same rule would apply to him. As it stands though, it doesn’t seem that we have any better alternative, unless I’m missing something that you see and I don’t.
I'm just angry. The alternative sucks, but so does the current president. He's cost us money and a wooden spoon. No-one should be allowed to get away with where the club has been for the past 3 seasons.
Unlike some other, I strongly believe success starts right at the top. Doesnt matter if Wallet is coach, or Miller is GM, its not enough to be a winning club. And what we've got at the top is what we've had for the past 3 miserable seasons. A lack of corporate sponsers, a lack of money, a lack of success.
Depressing
-
None of us are happy with how things have been and are 1980. But how is bringing in people who have even less of an idea going to change anything? They can only make things worse.
I understand your grudge against Casey, but where’s the alternative that can do better?
You even said it yourself that RFC has moved on. Unless the people there knew what they were doing, how could that happen? Wouldn’t we just continue to be a rabble and have people clamouring for change?
There’s no certainty that things will improve to the level we want, but the majority of us believe we are better off this way than with any of the alternatives that have put themselves forward to now.
It’s not like we have tunnel vision or anything, so should circumstances change now or some time soon and we see a better alternative out there then no doubt we would welcome any appropriate change with open arms, as we have the change in coach. I don’t know where the problem is in that.
Sticking with what we have when there could be the possibility of a better option ahead would just be stupid. So to say people shouldn’t change their minds for 5 years would imply that people be stubborn, narrow minded and just plain asking for trouble.
People are actually a bit more flexible in their views than that. It’s not being wishy washy, it’s just weighing up circumstances as they present themselves. Nothing wrong with that.
-
The glaring one to me in the ones who are restanding for election is Welsh. He was football director. Now, if you're unhappy with what's happened on the footy field 1980 - and ain't we all - wouldn't you think the bloke in charge of a football team that has performed as woefully as we have over the last couple of years is not someone you would want back on the board. We've had Beck who was in charge of recruiting and most of us have called for his head, and Danny's head - why wouldn't you say the same for Welsh?
The whole lot of them suck, including Casey, but we don't have many choices here unfortunately. But i sure as hell will not be voting for Welsh, Schwab or Casey under any circumstances.
-
None of us are happy with how things have been and are 1980. But how is bringing in people who have even less of an idea going to change anything? They can only make things worse.
I understand your grudge against Casey, but where’s the alternative that can do better?
You even said it yourself that RFC has moved on. Unless the people there knew what they were doing, how could that happen? Wouldn’t we just continue to be a rabble and have people clamouring for change?
There’s no certainty that things will improve to the level we want, but the majority of us believe we are better off this way than with any of the alternatives that have put themselves forward to now.
It’s not like we have tunnel vision or anything, so should circumstances change now or some time soon and we see a better alternative out there then no doubt we would welcome any appropriate change with open arms, as we have the change in coach. I don’t know where the problem is in that.
Sticking with what we have when there could be the possibility of a better option ahead would just be stupid. So to say people shouldn’t change their minds for 5 years would imply that people be stubborn, narrow minded and just plain asking for trouble.
People are actually a bit more flexible in their views than that. It’s not being wishy washy, it’s just weighing up circumstances as they present themselves. Nothing wrong with that.
Cant argue with you TS. You've got a clear head. And mine's full of steam.
Some of us hate the alternative ticket. Some us (or maybe one of us) have reached the stage where we hate everyone of them. But have been defending Clinton Casey a little too hard and would support him no matter who ran against him.
And for their sake (and more importantly the clubs), they better hope Casey performs massively better than he has for the past 3 years. Or its the SOS tins again.
-
The glaring one to me in the ones who are restanding for election is Welsh. He was football director. Now, if you're unhappy with what's happened on the footy field 1980 - and ain't we all - wouldn't you think the bloke in charge of a football team that has performed as woefully as we have over the last couple of years is not someone you would want back on the board. We've had Beck who was in charge of recruiting and most of us have called for his head, and Danny's head - why wouldn't you say the same for Welsh?
The whole lot of them suck, including Casey, but we don't have many choices here unfortunately. But i sure as hell will not be voting for Welsh, Schwab or Casey under any circumstances.
Froarsy, its taken me a while, but I've arrived where you've been all along.
But I've got one thing to add. As long as Casey is the dominating president he's been for the past 3 years, making every key decision on behalf of the board and the club, Wallace and Miller, Sheedy, Malthouse or Matthews, or even bringing back Graeme Richmond from the dead wont be enough to make this club the success that it should be, and having 27k+ members when you're on the bottom of the ladder justifies.
-
The glaring one to me in the ones who are restanding for election is Welsh. He was football director. Now, if you're unhappy with what's happened on the footy field 1980 - and ain't we all - wouldn't you think the bloke in charge of a football team that has performed as woefully as we have over the last couple of years is not someone you would want back on the board. We've had Beck who was in charge of recruiting and most of us have called for his head, and Danny's head - why wouldn't you say the same for Welsh?
The whole lot of them suck, including Casey, but we don't have many choices here unfortunately. But i sure as hell will not be voting for Welsh, Schwab or Casey under any circumstances.
Well said froars. Any alternative lead by disgruntled ex-board members who have been there and failed before wasn't going to be and isn't much of an alternative.
-
The glaring one to me in the ones who are restanding for election is Welsh. He was football director. Now, if you're unhappy with what's happened on the footy field 1980 - and ain't we all - wouldn't you think the bloke in charge of a football team that has performed as woefully as we have over the last couple of years is not someone you would want back on the board. We've had Beck who was in charge of recruiting and most of us have called for his head, and Danny's head - why wouldn't you say the same for Welsh?
The whole lot of them suck, including Casey, but we don't have many choices here unfortunately. But i sure as hell will not be voting for Welsh, Schwab or Casey under any circumstances.
Well said froars. Any alternative lead by disgruntled ex-board members who have been there and failed before wasn't going to be and isn't much of an alternative.
Well now that the disgruntled ones causing all the problems wont be there anymore, I expect that Casey will be free to help the club flourish over the next 3 years. We'll see if putting all our eggs in the Casey basket will be any different in the next 3 years, to what it was in the previous 3.
-
Look at it this way 1980, if this all goes pear shaped, you can then come and tell me how gullible I am. :P :help
-
By Lyall Johnson
realfooty.theage.com.au
October 22, 2004
Alternative Richmond board head Charles Macek will seek a meeting with Tigers president Clinton Casey to repeat a request that financial statements be made available without confidentiality conditions.
Macek admitted yesterday he had not met Casey in an official capacity as a challenger to the board as he only formally joined the alternative ticket a day before Casey left for an overseas holiday a month ago.
Casey is due to return today.
On top of the list of discussion topics will be the desire of the alternative ticket to get its hands on financial records without being restricted by the confidentiality clause that allows only one person to view the books and prevents that person from discussing the contents even with other members of the alternative ticket.
The alternative ticket has come under pressure from fans and members for not releasing a formal business plan or details of how it would run the club should it be elected but Macek yesterday claimed it was impossible for the group to formulate a position without seeing the books.
"You can't develop a business plan until you actually know what you are dealing with and equally, we can't magically deliver a sponsor because on what basis could we talk to someone? That's one of the great advantages of incumbency," Macek said.
http://realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/10/21/1098316786763.html?oneclick=true
-
Alternative Richmond board head Charles Macek will seek a meeting with Tigers president Clinton Casey to repeat a request that financial statements be made available without confidentiality conditions.
As confidentiality conditions are a standard business practice, a touch of wishful thinking there on the Alternative ticket's part.
"You can't develop a business plan until you actually know what you are dealing with and equally, we can't magically deliver a sponsor because on what basis could we talk to someone? That's one of the great advantages of incumbency," Macek said.
As recently departed board members Schwab and Welsh would have a pretty good idea what the Club are dealing with. It's not like the $2 million loss nor the recent changes within the Club have been a secret ???.
-
Look at it this way 1980, if this all goes pear shaped, you can then come and tell me how gullible I am. :P :help
I'm just sick of telling ppl I told you so. And I'm even more sick of believing we've turned the corner only to finish up with a wooden spoon, and then opposition supporters telling me I told you so. 20 years of this crap.
I'm going on the record. I dont think we're going to be any better off as long as Casey is there.
And as far as I'm concerned, its time for Miller to justify his reputation. He asked supporters for 3 years, he got them. He's getting another 2 now. Until we're a consistent finals side, then he's just a guy the Roos kicked out.
-
I'm just sick of telling ppl I told you so. And I'm even more sick of believing we've turned the corner only to finish up with a wooden spoon, and then opposition supporters telling me I told you so. 20 years of this crap.
A lot of us would be in the same boat 1980. And there’s probably been a few times over the years when many thought we had turned the corner. Mysteriously though, just when things seemed to be travelling along ok, we somehow managed to either de-rail ourselves or just head smack bang into disaster. Others might have seen it coming, but not us.
Anyway, you can’t continue to be so bad for so long without there being a problem right at the top. No denying that.
But we can’t just keep making changes, whenever things go wrong, without any real plans to improve things and without getting something better in place. Otherwise, we can keep changing things and nothing will ever change. It’s when things go wrong that you can correct them and that’s when things can and will change.
By just changing who or what caused the problem doesn’t change anything really, if you then don’t work out how to solve the problem. Because it will just occur again. As we know too well.
And that’s probably why we keep making the same mistakes and never seem to get anywhere. Because we don’t solve the problem, we just get rid of who caused the problem in the first place. For some reason, bringing in someone new and different seems to renew everyone’s hopes and suddenly everything’s fine again. Even though there may not be much difference between them and the person they have just replaced. And even though nothing has been done to resolve the issue that hasn’t gone away. But just because someone new has taken over everything suddenly seems to have been smoothed over.
The other problem that this “problem solving” approach has caused too is that those at the top have rarely been held accountable, because they have always made short-term, quick fix decisions such as these to get themselves off the hook. Whether it was intended that way or not doesn’t really matter. The effect is the same.
I'm going on the record. I dont think we're going to be any better off as long as Casey is there.
Your concern seems to be that Casey isn’t accountable for what’s happened. But until we have an election every year then, regardless of who is there, they will continue to get off the hook and be unaccountable. The way to have an accountable Board/Administration is by members having their say each year, at election time. It’s really that simple. Maybe too simple for people to think it will actually solve or change anything.
-
The alternative ticket has come under pressure from fans and members for not releasing a formal business plan or details of how it would run the club should it be elected but Macek yesterday claimed it was impossible for the group to formulate a position without seeing the books.
"You can't develop a business plan until you actually know what you are dealing with and equally, we can't magically deliver a sponsor because on what basis could we talk to someone? That's one of the great advantages of incumbency," Macek said.
:-\
How can they tell us we are in financial dire straits one moment and the next say they don’t know what the situation really is?
Which is it? They do or they don’t know? And if they don’t know then on what basis are they doing this when they originally started out by telling us they were concerned about our viability and were out to come save RFC? So you have to wonder whether they exaggerated our financial position just to stir things up and put doubt in supporters’ minds.
If that’s the case and the only way they believe they can get people on-side is through scare mongering then what is their real motivation for any of this and what do they really have to offer?
Not like we don’t already know or anything.
-
Perhaps the circle will be complete...John Howard, George Bush and Clinton Casey all remain in office, because there is really no viable or valuable opposition out there... :lol :scream
-
Perhaps the circle will be complete...John Howard, George Bush and Clinton Casey all remain in office, because there is really no viable or valuable opposition out there... :lol :scream
:rollin very good Fwoy
And we can have Charles Macek doing a John Kerry saying I wish I could just wrap my arms around you all :'( :'( and give you a big hug :help
;D
-
How can they tell us we are in financial dire straits one moment and the next say they don’t know what the situation really is?
Easy it depends which way the winds blowing on a particular day ::) or you simply say whatever makes you look like you have no idea with some sort of hope that it may score you a vote :-\
Which is it? They do or they don’t know?
Is this a trick question :scream :-\ :P or do you have any other options :help
-
Which is it? They do or they don’t know?
Is this a trick question :scream :-\ :P or do you have any other options :help
Sorry WP, you’re right. :cheers
I left off the most relevant and obvious option, which is, “we have absolutely no (expletive deleted) idea, never have really. Not that that stops us”. :rollin :help :P
-
I left off the most relevant and obvious option, which is, “we have absolutely no (expletive deleted) idea, never have really. Not that that stops us”. :rollin :help :P
And that is their whole problem in a nutshell TS and it has alienated me from the ticket since day one. Their arguements (for want of a better term) fall flat at best and are down right embarassing at worse. We had them say the Club's a financial basket case one minute, they have to administer "strong medicine" (Schwab's words not mine) the next. Shuffle along a bit further and we get the latest gem that you highlighted....
"You can't develop a business plan until you actually know what you are dealing with and equally, we can't magically deliver a sponsor because on what basis could we talk to someone? That's one of the great advantages of incumbency," Macek said.
Well at the very beginning Schwab said their ticket knew what was wrong and you would hope as a former board member he (and Welsh) would know because they were part of and privvy to what was going on and for anyone to argue that they didn't it laughable because Schwab's reasoning for leaving the board was because he had "concerns". Guess what :o to have "concerns" you would assume it is because someone isn't happy with what one is seeing. You can't have it both ways.
Now we are being fed we cannot come with a plan until "we see the books" . What a crock of cow dung :banghead.
They flip, they flop, they contridict and they embarass our Club and you know what after putting up with 20 years of crap and all that's come along with it I sick to death of this Club being embarassed by people with egos bigger than MCG
-
By just changing who or what caused the problem doesn’t change anything really, if you then don’t work out how to solve the problem. Because it will just occur again. As we know too well.
And that’s probably why we keep making the same mistakes and never seem to get anywhere. Because we don’t solve the problem, we just get rid of who caused the problem in the first place. For some reason, bringing in someone new and different seems to renew everyone’s hopes and suddenly everything’s fine again. Even though there may not be much difference between them and the person they have just replaced. And even though nothing has been done to resolve the issue that hasn’t gone away. But just because someone new has taken over everything suddenly seems to have been smoothed over.
Well said TS. You just have to look at the number of times "outside influcences" have put pressure on the Club to cave in to their wishes to do this, do that, sack the coach, etc... It's these outside influences, who hold no official office in the Club yet are still able to have a huge say in what happens, that have been and are the cancer at Richmond and if this situation were to continue then nothing will change no matter whoever wins this or any future election. That's why I don't and never will believe not removing that stupid clause in Spud's contract was a mistake despite putting up for one more year with the pain of watching crap footy and listening to coach cliche trying to explain and defend it. In the end the reward for not caving in was Wallace putting his hand up to coach. For the Club's sake of getting out of this abyss of mediocrity and back onto a path towards success, we couldn't and can't have it being held to ransom.
-
the joint is riddled with cancer :banghead
until someone with a bit of honesty and integrity stands up and says enuff is enuff the cancer will still be there regardless of who is sailing the goodship lollipop...
there must be someone out there that loves this club enuff to put an end to its slow demise...
c.c gone...
macek...big mistake...
schwab...delusional...
welsh..as above...
no amount of chemo will help rid this joint of the cancer that has eaten away the very fabric that this club was built on... toughness,spirit,etc...
its about time we had a revolution and we as members take back what is rightfully ours our club from these egotistical wanks...
-
From "Tigers launch new era" article:
There was also speculation that Greg Miller, the principal architect in Richmond's massive restructuring, could run for a board position.
Colleagues said Miller had always had the urge to participate at board level.
Miller was non-committal when asked whether he would nominate for the Richmond election next month.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,11307964%255E20322,00.html
-
There was also speculation that Greg Miller, the principal architect in Richmond's massive restructuring, could run for a board position.
I know since Jewell was tossed out at the last election and Welsh resigned (in both their cases no loss :thumbsup) we no longer have anyone on the board with a strict footy background but I don't see the need for Miller to go onto the board when the footy department is finally progressing well under his roll as Director of Football. The board can always take on his advice anyway. Keep him out of the politics and the stupidty and egos that goes with it at Richmond.
-
Just on the speculation that Miller could run for the board. Is he a RFC member?
-
I don't know MT, but seeing he is an employee of the club does he need to be a member to run?
-
I don't know MT, but seeing he is an employee of the club does he need to be a member to run?
Yep FF, he would need to be a 2004 RFC member.
8.2 Election of Board
8.2.3 (a) Where not inconsistent with the provisions hereinbefore contained, all nominations of members of the Board shall be in writing and signed by the candidate who shall be a member of the Club, and by two Ordinary Members of the Club, (other than Junior Members) and shall be delivered to the General Manager or Secretary not later than 8pm on a day twenty one (21) days before the Annual General Meeting. Nominations may be withdrawn in writing not later than five clear days prior to the date of election.
8.2.12 A member who is a Junior Member, Gaming Member, Associate Member, Visiting Member or Authorised Gaming Visitor only, shall not be eligible to stand for election for a position on the Board.
-
Miller will be president in 5 years
-
i would think that Miller is a member of the club, you would be surprised at some of the names.
I bet that Frawley will be a member next season also ;)
-
Tigers off to the polls
richmondfc.com.au
4:13:08 PM Wed 10 November, 2004
The Richmond Football Club today announced that its Annual General Meeting will be held on December 22, 2004 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Melbourne. A notice of meeting will be issued shortly to all RFC members.
At that meeting, all Board positions will be up for election. This means there will be nine Board vacancies to be filled.
All documentation, voting papers and procedures will be undertaken in accordance with the Club’s constitution. Postal voting for the election, which is a constitutional requirement, will be held between close of nominations of directors on 1 December and and December 17, 2004.
Under the terms of the constitution, nominations for Board positions must close only 21 days prior to the meeting. This is a tight time-frame with which to distribute voting papers and conduct the election, but that is the basis upon which the constitution is founded.Further information and formal notices will be sent to members shortly.
http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=featurestories&spg=display&articleid=177311
-
At that meeting, all Board positions will be up for election. This means there will be nine Board vacancies to be filled.
Am I dreaming. :)
An election with no restrictions placed on the members as to how they can vote. :thumbsup Surely there must be a catch.
Congratulations to all parties for arriving at the right outcome. (Assuming the statement says it all)
At the Grand Hyatt eh. I'm sure if enough ferals turn up it could be downgraded to 3 or 4 star status. 8)
-
At that meeting, all Board positions will be up for election. This means there will be nine Board vacancies to be filled.
This provides the best opportunity possible to remove any doubts about those on the Board.
And the best part is that the members get to decide. :cheers :birthday :thumbsup :santa
Let’s hope it’s not a dream FishFinger. Would be good if we could know now who the candidates will be. As it is, it’s a bit like getting an early Christmas present that you’re not allowed to open. Hope it doesn’t turn out to be socks, jocks and hankies. :santa
-
Good to hear the members will be the ones who'll have the final say and can pick and choose the candidates they want. Commonsense has prevailed :cheers.
No wastage of $60K either on a EGM. I assume that's now irrelevant. It should be.
I presume TS that most of the current board and the alternative ticket will run as candidates. It'll be interesting to see if any independents now put their hand up.
-
What about the name Mariner as in Davids son ;)
Going to have a split board again
-
Going to have a split board again
Not if the alternative ticket get their way of a ticket vote >:( ::).
--------------------------------------------
Tigers' board spill
10 November 2004
Herald Sun
Mark Stevens
THE battle for power at Richmond is about to flare again after confirmation yesterday that all positions on the club's board will be up for grabs at a December 22 annual general meeting.
All board members – including president Clinton Casey – have agreed to let the supporters decide their future.
Aspiring president Charles Macek, leader of the rebel ticket, hopes to sweep to power by getting his entire ticket of nine candidates over the line in a members' vote.
Postal voting will be held between close of nominations of directors on December 1 and December 17.
Further information and formal notices will be sent to members soon.
Under the terms of the constitution, nominations for board positions must close 21 days prior to the meeting.
Casey yesterday vowed to fight.
He said the club had taken significant strides forward in terms of restructuring – including the recruitment of coach Terry Wallace and chief executive Steven Wright.
Casey said he had yet to see any plans for the future from the opposing group. "I think I am the best person to take the club forward," he said.
Macek last night said he was pleased to receive official confirmation there would be a complete spill of board positions.
Macek and his group will continue to push for a senate-style ballot form where members would basically get to choose between both groups.
There would also be scope to vote for independents, but Macek is keen to avoid a board comprising members of both factions. "It would give us the best chance to be a united team – otherwise we could get a very hybrid board," he said.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,11350242%255E19771,00.html
-
Macek and his group will continue to push for a senate-style ballot form where members would basically get to choose between both groups.
There would also be scope to vote for independents, but Macek is keen to avoid a board comprising members of both factions. "It would give us the best chance to be a united team – otherwise we could get a very hybrid board," he said.
I cannot believe after getting the full board election they wanted, the alternative ticket are still not satisfied. What a joke! ::)
It is my right and every members right under the Club's constitution to vote for and pick the best individual candidates available. I would've thought if you had the best interests of the Club at heart you wouldn't put what's best for a faction ahead of the Club ::). If any candidate(s) can't accept that we the members can judge for ourselves what's best for the Club and instead want to shotgun over us then they can take a hike. It this sort of crap that's screwed the RFC all these years >:(.
-
Doesn't answer my question before - who stands down next year.
Are they gonna have a ballot for 3 people to stand down?
Geez, i hope Macek can fit the RFC into his busy schedule. In between selling off Telstra, doubt he'd have much time for the RFC.
I hope Welsh leaves any matters on the footy side alone.
I hope Schwab stops thinking he owns the RFC just because his daddy was a great RFC person - Cameron Schwab was enough to prove these Schwab half-wit progeny should stay away from our club.
Can't wait for my voting slip.
-
Tigers vote spells all change - or none
By Stephen Rielly
The Age
November 11, 2004
The path to an all-or-nothing Richmond election result was paved yesterday when Clinton Casey and his fellow directors announced that a spill of all nine board positions would occur, a decision likely to return the incumbents or usher in a completely new administration.
The decision, which followed a meeting between Casey and his would-be successor, Charles Macek, was revealed yesterday with a December 22 date for the annual meeting.
The Macek group immediately flagged its intention to push for a senate-style ballot paper that will enable Tiger members to vote for one ticket or the other, a move that, if agreed to by Casey's board, will point to a presidential-style contest and work against the possibility of a split outcome.
"That is the one further request we will make of the club; a ballot paper where you can vote above the line for one ticket or the other or, if you choose, vote for each of the individuals on the paper below the line, which is required by the constitution," Macek said.
"This won't disenfranchise members who want to vote for individuals and it doesn't disenfranchise those members who might want to stand as independents. These things are required by the constitution but we don't see why we can't have an addition to that by permitting for those people who wish to vote above the line for a whole ticket.
"That way you can be absolutely certain that you're going to get a united team rather than a hybrid board of nine individuals that may not have the required skill set or be able to work together effectively."
A full spill was one of several demands the Macek ticket made in return for holding off on a push for an extraordinary meeting. In calmer times, only three of the club's nine directors would have faced an election.
"We've finally, after many months, got confirmation that that would be happening and that obviously gives the members of the club the opportunity to vote for whichever team they think is best to take them forward in terms of leading the process of rebuilding," Macek said.
"I had a meeting with Clinton yesterday, a courtesy meeting, because I hadn't had the opportunity ot meeting with him. He is the president and I felt he deserved that courtesy.
"He was frank with me. The one issue I did express some concern, when he raised it, was that we did need confirmation of a full spill. He indicated that there would be a full spill, that he would address the issue at a board meeting, which was held last night and he's been true to his word."
Casey was unavailable for comment last night.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/11/10/1100021878929.html
-
"That way you can be absolutely certain that you're going to get a united team rather than a hybrid board of nine individuals that may not have the required skill set or be able to work together effectively."
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/11/10/1100021878929.html
stuffen hell - They will just not give the us versus them thing a rest will they - If Macek and co keep carrying on like this my vote goes straight to the current board. They are just not doing it for the sake of Richmond just a bunch of ego's that is if Macek is speaking for all of them ::)
I am going to hold my breath and sit in the corner now until I get my way ::) :banghead
-
Charles Macek was on SEN just after the 7.30am news - I didn't hear all of it probably half.
In summary Macek said the following:
- The alternative were "absolutely delighted" that there was going to an election
- Will still push for a senate style voting ticket
- Would not commit to what his ticket members would do if a new board was made up of say independants, part current board members and part his ticket. He said it was the members right to do that but it would be "problematic"
- said he was surprised about how positive Tigerland was at the moment considering we had lost 14 games in the row and were million of dollars in debt.
The above highlights why I will not support the alternative. Firstly they don't seem to be prepared to accept the members decision by not commiting to work with whoever is elected.
Secondly and this really gets me - YES we are going to lose $2.5million this season but WE ARE NOT MILLIONS of dollars in debt. After the loss we will be approxmiately $600,000 in debt. Stop the scare mongering!
Clinton Casey was on SEN and Sport 927:
In summary he said
- that the senate style ticket is not a democratic way for members to vote and the constitution doens't allow it and the y election would be run as per the constitution
- he is expecting a number independants to run
- gave the commitment that he would accept the members vote and would work with whoever gets elected.
- he said although the current board didn't believe a full spill of positions wa sin the CLubs best interest they had done it because they had given their word.
- said that this election was always going to happen because that was the agreement and that it was disappointing that there had been reports in the media from the alternative ticket stating that that this wasn't going to happen.
I think it is fair to say that Casey has kept his word
-
It is my right and every members right under the Club's constitution to vote for and pick the best individual candidates available. I would've thought if you had the best interests of the Club at heart you wouldn't put what's best for a faction ahead of the Club ::). If any candidate(s) can't accept that we the members can judge for ourselves what's best for the Club and instead want to shotgun over us then they can take a hike. It this sort of crap that's screwed the RFC all these years >:(.
Here here MT spot on.
It's certainly going to be an interesting time.
In all honesty there a couple of people on the Alternative ticket that I'd like to see on the board (then there is a number of them I don't want there ;D) but before I vote I want a guarantee from all candidates that they will work with whoever elses is elected. As I've said before if they cannot do that then they shouldn't be standing and wont get my vote.
-
I presume TS that most of the current board and the alternative ticket will run as candidates. It'll be interesting to see if any independents now put their hand up.
The best scenario would be if we get some genuine, outstanding and independent candidates to vote for MT. Agree with your comments too.
But when this election is over, the reality could be that we may not have the ideal composition of the RFC Board. And if the Club was always run according to the constitution there wouldn’t be the need to go through any of this. But as tough as things may be for the short-term, at least it’s a starting point and a step in the right direction to finally seeing RFC run democratically.
However, given their attitude and the way Macek’s group have conducted themselves throughout this campaign, you wonder whether that start would continue under them. Because what has been made all but clear, if it wasn’t already clear from the start, is the true colours of the Alternative ticket.
And the level of naivety, blinkeredness, narrow mindedness, selfishness and backwardness coming from these people is beyond belief.
The Macek group immediately flagged its intention to push for a senate-style ballot paper that will enable Tiger members to vote for one ticket or the other, a move that, if agreed to by Casey's board, will point to a presidential-style contest and work against the possibility of a split outcome.
"That way you can be absolutely certain that you're going to get a united team rather than a hybrid board of nine individuals that may not have the required skill set or be able to work together effectively."
If what Macek has said is his group’s attitude to this election then that alone is reason enough to steer well clear of all of them, because who and what gives them the right to dictate terms and want things to be conducted in a manner to suit their own cause, rather than as the Club’s constitution intends them to be carried out, which gives members enough credit to be able to decide for themselves who is best to represent their Club? And if they’re not prepared to accept the decision made by members now, in accordance with the Club's constitution, then what chance would there be of that happening, were they to be elected? Under the influence of such attitudes, you have to wonder how long it would be before we would revert to what we’ve had in the past, which is an unaccountable Board/Administration and being told by a select few what we want. In effect, all that we have gone through now, to get to this stage, would come to nothing.
As others have commented, for Macek to admit that it would be difficult to work with current Board members, if a combination of the two parties were to be elected, only reinforces the view that they have done this for reasons of self-interest, rather than the interests of the Richmond Football Club. How else can you view these comments?
This election provides the best opportunity we have ever had to change things for the better and steer away from the past. And the traits displayed by those putting themselves up for election are the traits that they will no doubt carry with them onto the Board. And if Macek’s attitude and thinking is typical of past Board members then it’s easy to see why we’ve been such a basket case all these years. If we’re happy with the past then they are the answer. But if we want something better then let’s hope some genuine candidates come forward and that this dream doesn’t become our worst nightmare.
Change for the sake of change isn’t an answer or solution to anything. So if members are serious about wanting change then look forward, rather than backwards and see who is genuine and who isn’t. And see those who aren’t living in the past and can take us forward. Because the risks are minimised by selecting those who are focused on the future and improving things for RFC, rather than on getting the best result for themselves.
-
Thanks for the summary WP :cheers
Charles Macek was on SEN just after the 7.30am news - I didn't hear all of it probably half.
- Would not commit to what his ticket members would do if a new board was made up of say independants, part current board members and part his ticket. He said it was the members right to do that but it would be "problematic"
It would only be "problematic" if those on the post-election board make it so. In any case everyone needs to accept the outcome of the election whatever it is. If they can't and want to instead to continue to destabilise the Club behind the scenes then they can bugger off and follow someone else!
- said he was surprised about how positive Tigerland was at the moment considering we had lost 14 games in the row and were million of dollars in debt.
I'm surprised at him being surprised. No Spud :thumbsup, Wallace on board, 12 changes to our list, 5 picks in the top 20 and rebuilding via youth - why wouldn't you be positive. As for the millions of dollars in debt crap ::). Very hard for the alternative to take the high moral ground in regards to being honest towards the members when they continue to make statements such as this.
Clinton Casey was on SEN and Sport 927:
In summary he said
- that the senate style ticket is not a democratic way for members to vote and the constitution doens't allow it and the y election would be run as per the constitution
Good to hear. We as members can think for ourselves you know ::).
- he is expecting a number independants to run
The more quality ones the better as it gives up greater choice.
- gave the commitment that he would accept the members vote and would work with whoever gets elected.
That's if you're still on the board after the vote Clinton ;D
-
Top post TS :cheers
The best scenario would be if we get some genuine, outstanding and independent candidates to vote for MT.
IMO the only way we are going to get more genuine, outstanding and independent candidates to run at RFC elections is if they feel they will be able to contribute to the Club without being marginalised, hindered and/or underminded by factions and egos. No one genuine will put their hand up if they feel it's going to be a complete waste of their time trying to combat the us and them environment we've had for 20 years as opposed to a constructive, creative and united one. As you said TS, this election and the demeanour of the post-election board whoever they will be, will be our best chance to break away from our sick self-destructive past.
-
WP
One thing Macek said was that the members will not vote on who leads - when the new board is decided they will elect the
el presidente - so we must be careful here :thumbsup
-
One thing Macek said was that the members will not vote on who leads - when the new board is decided they will elect the el presidente - so we must be careful here :thumbsup
The board members choosing who out of them will be president has always been the way. I don't have a problem with that as it stops the presidential role becoming a popularity contest.
-
I am basically totally undecided on this whole issue at the moment.
During the past couple of years I have been the biggest critic of this club. From the players to the coach to the board members. I was frustrated each week by seeing useless players being named each week, pathetic coaching moves being made and unconditional support being given from the president, football director and board members to the coach. This made my blood boil and after 2-3 years of this I had enough. Along with the 2-3M dollar losses, I wanted change at every level.
Now I sit back and see the massive positive changes taking place at the club. Changes that I hve been crying out for for so long. I have confidence that with Miller and Wallace in charge, we will be much more competitive. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when we play in regular finals.
So at the end of the day it's all about the on-field football stuff. It's all about how successful you are on the park. You can have the best financial and marketing policies, but if you are crap on the field you will find yourself in the situation we are in. Would have made NO difference who was on the board and who was president during the past 5 years.
In saying all this however, whoever gets elected will not have a major impact in our revival, as the fundumental foundations have already been set. The right coaching panel have been employed, the right football director is in place, the right CEO has been appointed and the right quality kids will be drafted. Therefore whoever gets elected now will automatically become more successful than the previous lot and will reap the rewards of the seeds that have already been planted.
Irrelevant election IMO and no better time for a donkey vote.
-
I am basically totally undecided on this whole issue at the moment.
During the past couple of years I have been the biggest critic of this club. From the players to the coach to the board members. I was frustrated each week by seeing useless players being named each week, pathetic coaching moves being made and unconditional support being given from the president, football director and board members to the coach. This made my blood boil and after 2-3 years of this I had enough. Along with the 2-3M dollar losses, I wanted change at every level.
Now I sit back and see the massive positive changes taking place at the club. Changes that I hve been crying out for for so long. I have confidence that with Miller and Wallace in charge, we will be much more competitive. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when we play in regular finals.
So at the end of the day it's all about the on-field football stuff. It's all about how successful you are on the park. You can have the best financial and marketing policies, but if you are crap on the field you will find yourself in the situation we are in. Would have made NO difference who was on the board and who was president during the past 5 years.
In saying all this however, whoever gets elected will not have a major impact in our revival, as the fundumental foundations have already been set. The right coaching panel have been employed, the right football director is in place, the right CEO has been appointed and the right quality kids will be drafted. Therefore whoever gets elected now will automatically become more successful than the previous lot and will reap the rewards of the seeds that have already been planted.
Irrelevant election IMO and no better time for a donkey vote.
I'm with you Harry. I wanted the place turned upside down, but am prepared to see whether the recent changes will work.
Except the part about Greg Miller. A good PR man, good PR for himself that is, but a wooden spoon is what he's contributed to the club, and he's been there long enough to avoid it. How good would North Melb have been without Dennis Pagan anyway? And look at what their financial position was when they kicked Miller out.
Thankfully, I do have faith in Wallace toughening the players up, and putting some discipline into the way we play footy.
-
Except the part about Greg Miller. A good PR man, good PR for himself that is, but a wooden spoon is what he's contributed to the club, and he's been there long enough to avoid it.
I'm not sure you're giving him much of a chance 1980. Didn't he come to the club after the 2002 draft?
I'm sure this is only the second draft he has been involved in for the club. That means his input on list management started by effectively clearing as many players off the list as Carlton did ready for the 2003 draft. (Carlton had more retirements, so a couple extra replacements)
Miller has had to start from scratch and to judge his success on one season is a touch harsh.
-
I hear you Amazing 80's and agree with you to an extent re Miller.
I have been very critical of some of Millers recruiting decisions in the past 2 years and i am one of few who thinks that recruiting Brown and Johnson was a mistake. Let's not mention the extension of the spud cotract.
But he has redeemed himself to an extent by playing an integral role in the appointment of Wallace, and it is Wallace and his assistants that I have placed most of my remaining hope into. For Miller's, RFC's and our sake, let's pray Wallace can deliver. Cos if this fails, then I don't see where we can go from here.
-
In saying all this however, whoever gets elected will not have a major impact in our revival, as the fundumental foundations have already been set. The right coaching panel have been employed, the right football director is in place, the right CEO has been appointed and the right quality kids will be drafted. Therefore whoever gets elected now will automatically become more successful than the previous lot and will reap the rewards of the seeds that have already been planted.
That’s assuming all those voted on have half a clue HarryH. Because it’s only if and when the administration/Board do their job properly that the changes you talk about can happen. And the people who can make things happen are those who know what they are doing. Otherwise, you get what we’ve had all these years, even though many well meaning people have tried and failed.
The reason we’ve been so ordinary on the field is because we’ve been ordinary off the field. And we can never have success on the field without a stable and functional Board/Administration. People who don’t have the capacity or ability to take the Club forward will mire it where it has been. No question.
Just voting in anyone and thinking this is a nothing election could reverse everything that has been done to now, if we don’t have people on the Board who can ensure that the changes made so far will turn into success down the track. And it’s not like there aren’t other decisions to be made now and in the future and you want people who know what they are doing making those decisions.
Thinking that Miller and Wallace alone will save the footy club is ok, as long as you know they have a solid Board/Administration behind them. With the wrong people in charge, their authority could be undermined and their impact diminished.
We know how difficult it has been, just to get things to this stage. So let’s not get blasé about things and think that the make up of the Board is now irrelevant just because some positive changes have been made. It doesn't all end there. It’s not just important to know who to vote for, it’s crucial to where RFC goes from hereon in.
-
I hear what your saying Spirit, but IMO a footy club succeeds or fails depending on the people in the footy department. This is the most crucial foundation that needs to be set and IMO we are well on the way in this department. The board from now on merely needs to not interfere with Wallace's business, administer the selling of memberships, get a few sponsors and count the beans. If Wallace is successful then all these other factors become so much easier to achieve.
The previous/current board failed because they employed the wrong people in the footy dept and sat on their hands for too long when the hard decisions were required to be made regarding getting rid of those imposters that sat in the coaches box. This is where they failed. Not because they couldn't attact enough members or sponsors, but because they let the bufoons posing as coaches completely ruin the club.
A boards success is measured by the people they employ in the football department. Every other decision is immaterial in the scheme of things.
-
I am basically totally undecided on this whole issue at the moment.
During the past couple of years I have been the biggest critic of this club. From the players to the coach to the board members. I was frustrated each week by seeing useless players being named each week, pathetic coaching moves being made and unconditional support being given from the president, football director and board members to the coach. This made my blood boil and after 2-3 years of this I had enough. Along with the 2-3M dollar losses, I wanted change at every level.
Now I sit back and see the massive positive changes taking place at the club. Changes that I hve been crying out for for so long. I have confidence that with Miller and Wallace in charge, we will be much more competitive. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when we play in regular finals.
So at the end of the day it's all about the on-field football stuff. It's all about how successful you are on the park. You can have the best financial and marketing policies, but if you are crap on the field you will find yourself in the situation we are in. Would have made NO difference who was on the board and who was president during the past 5 years.
In saying all this however, whoever gets elected will not have a major impact in our revival, as the fundumental foundations have already been set. The right coaching panel have been employed, the right football director is in place, the right CEO has been appointed and the right quality kids will be drafted. Therefore whoever gets elected now will automatically become more successful than the previous lot and will reap the rewards of the seeds that have already been planted.
Irrelevant election IMO and no better time for a donkey vote.
I'm with you Harry. I wanted the place turned upside down, but am prepared to see whether the recent changes will work.
Except the part about Greg Miller. A good PR man, good PR for himself that is, but a wooden spoon is what he's contributed to the club, and he's been there long enough to avoid it. How good would North Melb have been without Dennis Pagan anyway? And look at what their financial position was when they kicked Miller out.
Thankfully, I do have faith in Wallace toughening the players up, and putting some discipline into the way we play footy.
I'm with you two manic farks! :thumbsup
-
Except the part about Greg Miller. A good PR man, good PR for himself that is, but a wooden spoon is what he's contributed to the club, and he's been there long enough to avoid it.
I'm not sure you're giving him much of a chance 1980. Didn't he come to the club after the 2002 draft?
I'm sure this is only the second draft he has been involved in for the club. That means his input on list management started by effectively clearing as many players off the list as Carlton did ready for the 2003 draft. (Carlton had more retirements, so a couple extra replacements)
Miller has had to start from scratch and to judge his success on one season is a touch harsh.
How much of a chance does he need fishy? He told supporters not to expect overnite results, and he needed 3 years. He's had 2 seasons so accordingy to him, we're a year away from playing premiership footy.
The club loses $2.5m in the same year he's flying to London to negotiate with Dean Solomon a massive contract. Any fool can throw big cheques at players like Nathan Brown. Its not like he chose to play for RFC cos we were a premiership side. He came cos Miller gave him the biggest cheque.
And how about recruiting Blumfeld. What a coup that one was.
And of course I'm not giving him much of a chance. I'm a Richmond supporter FFS ;)
-
I hear what your saying Spirit, but IMO a footy club succeeds or fails depending on the people in the footy department. This is the most crucial foundation that needs to be set and IMO we are well on the way in this department. The board from now on merely needs to not interfere with Wallace's business, administer the selling of memberships, get a few sponsors and count the beans. If Wallace is successful then all these other factors become so much easier to achieve.
I hear you too Harry and you would think that it should all be that simple. Maybe I’m just so used to seeing things go off the rails that I’m preparing or expecting the worst at any moment. But someone had to recruit those people in the footy department and had to know what they were doing. They didn't just recruit themselves. And why did it take so long?
The previous/current board failed because they employed the wrong people in the footy dept and sat on their hands for too long when the hard decisions were required to be made regarding getting rid of those imposters that sat in the coaches box. This is where they failed. Not because they couldn't attact enough members or sponsors, but because they let the bufoons posing as coaches completely ruin the club.
And that’s the very reason we need to take some interest in those we vote onto the Board this time round. Because the wrong type will employ the wrong people and make the wrong decisions and even short circuit what has been done in recent times.
Previous administrations couldn’t change anything. It’s only now that we can see a real difference in anything. And no doubt because the thinking within the Club changed. If we bring in that old thinking again we can easily revert to the past, regardless of whether Miller and Wallace are there. Don’t let’s think that’s not possible.
This is where members get to have their say and ensure that doesn’t happen. Now that we have that chance, let’s at least give it some thought, rather than thinking the hard work is over.
-
And how about recruiting Blumfeld. What a coup that one was.
I forgot he was involved in getting Blumfield, so this will be his third draft and I stand corrected on that point.
As for his success rate, I think some appointments he has been a key figure in making (coaching staff) will improve his strike rate considerably on the field.
He also seems to do a lot of off-field work which is hard to measure when you don't know the extent of it. (Like I don't)
-
I hear what your saying Spirit, but IMO a footy club succeeds or fails depending on the people in the footy department. This is the most crucial foundation that needs to be set and IMO we are well on the way in this department. The board from now on merely needs to not interfere with Wallace's business, administer the selling of memberships, get a few sponsors and count the beans. If Wallace is successful then all these other factors become so much easier to achieve.
I hear you too Harry and you would think that it should all be that simple. Maybe I’m just so used to seeing things go off the rails that I’m preparing or expecting the worst at any moment. But someone had to recruit those people in the footy department and had to know what they were doing. They didn't just recruit themselves. And why did it take so long?
And that’s the very reason we need to take some interest in those we vote onto the Board this time round. Because the wrong type will employ the wrong people and make the wrong decisions and even short circuit what has been done in recent times.
Previous administrations couldn’t change anything. It’s only now that we can see a real difference in anything. And no doubt because the thinking within the Club changed. If we bring in that old thinking again we can easily revert to the past, regardless of whether Miller and Wallace are there. Don’t let’s think that’s not possible.
This is where members get to have their say and ensure that doesn’t happen. Now that we have that chance, let’s at least give it some thought, rather than thinking the hard work is over.
The hard work has only just begun. Right now with all the positive changes that have and are happening the club is experiencing a honeymoon period. Supporters are estactic Spud and a number of duds have finally gone and Wallace and Miller are making all the right noises and actions that Tiger supporters have been demanding. As a result, they can make these badly needed changes unhindered.
However, the fruits of these changes will take time to come to fruition for possibly 2-3 years at the very least and there'll be surprising highs and frustrating lows along the way as is normally the case. The question is can we as a Club from the president down to the bootstudder hold our nerve in the meantime and not turn on Wallace and Co if on-field results aren't relatively instant? I agree with Harry there that on-field results alone is what determines Club success or failure in the eyes of the footy world. And can those in official positions whoever they are or will be remain focussed on a long-term plan and not cave in to or become puppets to self-imposed "influential" types (troublemakers) that have plagued our Club for the past two decades?
This is why this vote is very important. As TS said if the wrong people get in (those that think they themselves or these "influentials" around them know better) then what should now be an obvious and steady progression towards success as Harry points out, could still go pear shaped like we've seen so many times in the past 20 years.
-
Time to deliver
13 November 2004
Herald Sun
By MIKE SHEAHAN
Tiger and Hawk reform groups must deliver the goods
ANY reform group that announces itself on the AFL scene is guaranteed a honeymoon period in the media.
We embrace the agitators for all the predictable reasons: the news value, the scent of blood, and, to be frank, the torrent of criticism inevitably dumped on those in office.
You will be familiar with the most popular lines: "The club's out of control . . . there's no leadership . . they're all on ego trips . . . on-field failure is ingrained . . . why don't they look in the mirror instead of sacking everyone else?"
It's fertile ground, too, as reform groups thrive at clubs that have had a bad year/s.
There comes a time, though, when the challengers need to deliver more than criticism of the incumbents. The free-hit permit offered to every reform group has an expiry date.
For the Operation Recovery group at Hawthorn and the Charles Macek group at Richmond, that time has come. The battle lines are drawn, and we will have election results within six weeks.
The challengers now have to try to convince voting members they offer more than just a set of different names. Particularly when many of the names have sat round the same board tables before.
Far easier to criticise a group for what it hasn't done than to come up with a set of plausible promises.
.......
It's a similar tale at Punt Rd. Brendan Schwab desperately wants Clinton Casey's head.
He settled on Macek as the public face of the front, just as Scott settled on Arthur.
Yet, Casey has improved his stocks in recent times. The appointment of Terry Wallace as coach was a coup in more ways than one. There's a new CEO, Steven Wright, and the acquisition of Troy Simmonds hasn't hurt, either.
Casey has to own up to another heavy trading loss of $2 million-plus, but Macek, Schwab and company have to convince members they have ways and means to ensure the black hole will be covered over forever.
The problem for both reform groups is the renewed optimism at the clubs. Particularly Richmond.
....
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,11370029%255E19742,00.html
-
The problem for both reform groups is the renewed optimism at the clubs. Particularly Richmond.
The other problem for any challenger is that many mums and dads' members don't take a great deal of interest in club politics. They are more interested and understandably so in whether the Tiges win or lose. I know I didn't until the election earlier this year (granted we haven't had many elections to vote on and none of this scale). If the average member is happier with the changes made (and there's more to come before the AGM is held with the new kids being drafted next weekend) than disgusted with the 2004 performances both on and off-field then any challenger is going to find it hard.
-
Sorry to bring this back to the top dude's and dudette's - But too true the alternate is going to struggle now.
Everything seems to be falling nicely into place - ( I said seems ).
Just got a letter from the Tigers today - which advises of the AGM in December. Nominations for the 9 vacant Director positions will be accepted until 08:00 pm Wed 1st December - so I expect we will have our voting forms shortly after.
I think I may just go the Casey ticket for the sake of stability ? may change 1 or 2 spots dont really know - have to wait and see who the nominees are - one thing I know is I dont want Schwab anywhere near the place.
Casey has made his stuffups - but Schwab and his puppet Macek still have not said what they will do (just a power play) had his chance - to late now GO AWAY
Remember last fans training day for the year December 15th at punt rd 3:30 onwards - should be interesting to have a peek :cheers
-
The alternative ticket as a whole have now become irrelevant especially after the draft/trade period and reading in the Fighting Tiger more specifics on the Club's future plans and direction. Still no specific plans from the alternative apart from Schwab continually needing to tell us what the Club did wrong :sleep. How about we talk about the future Brendan!
That's not to say I won't be sitting down and picking the best 9 individual candidates for the board from the list of nominees but right now the RFC ship just needs to be kept on its current course and we allow the changes that have taken place over the past couple of months to come to fruition. As Miller said today all the tough decisions have been made.
Anyone else get the impression that Miller would prefer the status quo from this and other statements he's made recently:
The past three months have, in so many ways, been the turning point in the Richmond Football Club's more recent history. . .
I genuinely feel we're on the right track and that our members can be proud of the clear direction the Club is now taking - a clear direction that inevitably will pay dividends on-field.
The decision not to go ahead with an extraordinary meeting paved the way for Terry Wallace's appointment as coach, and I can assure you he already has had a major impact at Tigerland.
Significant change has taken place due to the fact that the Club made the tough decisions. It appointed a strategic planner, acted on that subsequent report, and then made the necessary cuts in all departments. Importantly, the Board of Directors appointed the right man to implement the plan in CEO Steven Wright.
All departments at the Club have been set clear targets, with staff given the confidence and direction to succeed in their particular areas of expertise.
....
Finally, I can't stress enough that the key to the Club going forward is to stick with the plans that we've implemented over the past three months. If this happens, I'm sure the future will be very bright at Tigerland . . .
-
I just hope that no matter who wins that both sides can then lay down their arms and unite and support the board 100%
-
As Miller said today all the tough decisions have been made.
That's exactly how I feel also. This election thing is a non-event IMO :sleep. All it will do is settle the seating arrangements on the Tiger express.
-
How about we talk about the future Brendan!
MT, Perhaps it scares then that we actually seem to have a bright one? Future that is.
And....
I read in Sunday's HUN in Punchlines that Merv Keane is going to become involved at the Club in 2005 :thumbsup A true Tiger Champion Merv Keane :bow :cheers
I remember there was talk a while (around truce time ::)) back that he was going to join the Casey ticket.
I wonder if he is going to stand for the board as an independant? He'd get my vote :thumbsup
-
I read in Sunday's HUN in Punchlines that Merv Keane is going to become involved at the Club in 2005 :thumbsup
Good to see :thumbsup.
One of the criticisms of the current board is they don't have a strict football person after TJ got voted out and Welsh took flight. Not that they helped with solving our on-field woes nor that not having one has hindered the improvements we've seen in the footy department the past couple of months. One thing that will go in favour of the likes of Keane if he runs and Wood from the alternative side is that most Tiger supporters know them well from their champion playing days and they don't carry baggage being new boys to RFC officialdom.
-
I read in Sunday's HUN in Punchlines that Merv Keane is going to become involved at the Club in 2005 :thumbsup A true Tiger Champion Merv Keane :bow :cheers
I remember there was talk a while (around truce time ::)) back that he was going to join the Casey ticket.
I wonder if he is going to stand for the board as an independant? He'd get my vote :thumbsup
Good to see Merv coming back to the club.
Interestingly someone on PRE who claims to be close to the alternatives (not sure in what sense) said Merv was against the Casey board.
I wonder if this person has anything to do with the dodgy source feeding Caro material such as Dick Clay fronting the alternative and, I suspect, this piece of (mis)information on Keane.
-
This is the full bit from Sunday's Punchlines in the Herald Sun (21/11/04):
Tigers' eye is Keane
By Scot Palmer (page 48)
Richmond's new "eyes and ears" and the replacement fro Tony Jewell is triple flag winner Merv Keane. The experienced Keane will work with operations cheif Greg Miller and as a conduit to the board when needed. Another surprise arrival at Punt Road is former Blue-Bulldog Gordon Casey, who will give input to the new look football division.
-
Just in case you misread me WP, I was knocking the other person.
I read the bit by Scott Palmer on the weekend and thought it extremely unlikely Keane would take on such a role if not to help the Casey board.
Another quality addition.
-
Just in case you misread me WP, I was knocking the other person.
I read the bit by Scott Palmer on the weekend and thought it extremely unlikely Keane would take on such a role if not to help the Casey board.
Another quality addition.
No no FF it's cool - I have been trying to find the article to post it for people - finally found it this morning in the recycle bin :help
Also, somewhere I read and it is probably at the beginning of this thread that Merv Keane was going to join the Casey board
:thumbsup
-
Anyone else get the impression that Miller would prefer the status quo from this and other statements he's made recently:
Wouldn’t surprise me one bit MT. If he’s come to the conclusion that those from the past didn’t know how to change anything then why wouldn’t he prefer things as they are now?
I wouldn’t blame anyone for not wanting to go back to the sort of Board we’ve had previously, which just expected things to happen, rather than expect that they are the ones who can make them happen.
It’s clear that RFC has been totally unprofessional for years. So why would we now want back those who helped create and perpetuate the mediocrity, when they could only see their way clear to stuff up the plans put in place now?
The Alternatives preach about how the Board under Casey was just waiting for the team to be successful so that the Club would be successful. Well, the news is that the Club was running that way before Casey even arrived at RFC. Interestingly enough, a number of the Alternative ticket was part of those Boards. Not that they will accept any of the responsibility or criticism for that, or acknowledge that’s how things were back then. And if they didn’t recognise that’s how things were then they shouldn’t have even been on the Board. So why would we bring them back? We have a death wish or something?
It’s only now people at RFC have had enough initiative to recognise and do something about the problems. Miller would know the extent of things better than us and why would he, or anyone, want to bring back those who were content to sit back and wait for things to happen or change, rather than going out and making them happen, when we seem to be on the right path now. Why risk sabotaging what has been started?
And why bring back those who aren’t able to accept when things are wrong and do something about changing them, but just take it as a personal affront when challenged about how the Club is going. As has been the case in previous years. What were they committed to, RFC or personal pride?
Many tough decisions may have already been made, but a lot has to happen before we can say we have well and truly turned things around. There will still be tough times ahead and if and when they do arrive we don’t want any half-hearteds, who can only take us backwards and jeopardise our chances, being in control at those times. Because no plan, no matter how good, is fool proof and can carry itself out to achieve the intended results, without people who know what they are doing, and the commitment to see it through, driving things.
Previous RFC Boards lacked the awareness and initiative to change anything. The Club invariably stagnated once the on-field results didn't materialise. What didn't seem to be realised, by those who could do something about it, was that the short-sighted solutions the Club continually adopted meant that the Club's Board, Administration and players were always off the hook, once it was decided that the Coach didn't know what he was doing after all. It just never seemed to occur to those running things that maybe they were as responsible as anyone for our lack of success and behind the reasons why the Coach couldn't do his job properly, because the unaccountable environment, created and perpetuated by them, impacted on the players and, effectively, the whole Club.
It’s this sort of impact the Board has on the whole Club and it’s this sort of management we want to get away from – for good. Bringing back those with blinkered views won’t help make life easy for anyone. It’ll just stifle things.
-
Top post TS :thumbsup
-
I must admit I find it amusing that Casey's blamed for everything bad that's happened at Tigerland over the last 4-5 years. He's probably hiding Iraq's WMDs ;D
By the same token, it's interesting to note that he's given absolutely no credit for anything positive that has happened. So on one hand if it's bad it's down to Clinton, but if it's good then it's down to someone else.
Unlike some others at least Casey has come out on more than one occasion and admitted that he has made mistakes. If you listen to Schwab and co, even though most of them were on previous boards - they never made a mistake, never made a decision or didn't have the balls to stand for themselves.
Personally I like the fact that Casey has an ego (ditto for Miller and Wallace). People with healthy egos want to be winners not LOSERS. Take a look a successful people, healthy egos the lot of them.
I'll be supporting Clinton at the AGM. I certainly won't be voting for yesterday's men.
Just climbing down from the soapbox now ;D
-
Good post Bee Gees 25.
I was opposed to Casey in the beginning mainly because I didn't think he was a man who could make the right decisions in order to make us a successful club, and the on-field performances and losses incurred supported that view. However the decisions that have been made recently have been spot on and what I have been crying out for. Casey must take credit for these. Slowly he has been winning me over and currently I'm at the point where I'm totally undecided. I think alot of members are in the same boat. On one hand you don't want to vote for a guy who's presided over consecutive big losses. But on the other hand the decisions he has made recently have been really good and you know that we are heading in the right direction. Do you punish someone for the big losses or do you reward them and place your faith in them to continue the right dirction of the club.
Don't know.
-
I may be mistaken but i am pretty sure i have read of Schwab taking some responsibility for the poor state of the club.
On the other hand i do not remember ever hearing Casey take any , if anyone has a quote of him taking responsibility please post it....
-
I may be mistaken but i am pretty sure i have read of Schwab taking some responsibility for the poor state of the club.
I missed this great admission - what did he say Harry?
-
it was no great admission IIRC
maybe one or two words in an interview.
i think it was in an article because i vaguely remember someone here responding along the lines of "thats big of you"
-
RICHMOND last night acknowledged several mistakes had contributed to its $2.19 million operating loss this year, but president Clinton Casey remains confident of a dramatic turnaround.
In an e-mail to club members, Casey said the heavy loss was "totally unacceptable" and tried to smooth the waters by saying it had been forecast in March.
Now facing a board challenge at the December annual general meeting from the rebel Charles Macek-Brendan Schwab faction, Casey said the club had begun to rectify the situation.
"The board erred in budgeting for continued growth in revenues, particularly corporate sponsorships," he said.
"That budget was based on more on-field success and a lot more growth in the marketing field.
"It also provided for a relatively high-cost football department budget, to get the club back on track with on-field success."
Football department costs amounted to $10.6 million last season, $500,000 over budget, but the 2005 forecast has been cut to $9.8 million.
In a crippling blow, football, membership, corporate, event and function incomes were all down last season.
"In summary, we were over-optimistic on revenue," Casey said last night.
"That, along with a significant fall in revenue from our gaming venues, sponsorship and coterie groups, led to our financial plight.
"But having promptly recognised the challenges, we subsequently made changes with the CEO, to the administration, and in the football department structure, to make sure such financial problems don't arise again at Tigerland."
Casey said $1.5 million in savings had already been identified.
"Those cost-savings are virtually set in concrete already because they're in player contracts, membership fulfilment and other areas that we can actually control," Casey said.
While Casey is confident of being re-elected at the December 22 annual general meeting, it's understood legendary former captain and coach Francis Bourke has joined the call for change.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,11511200%255E19742,00.html
-
While Casey is confident of being re-elected at the December 22 annual general meeting, it's understood legendary former captain and coach Francis Bourke has joined the call for change.
Maybe Bourke, Barrot, Clay and Hart - who according to rumour file yesterday are coming out in support of the alternative - can maybe let us know (the ordinary supporters) why they're in support of them. Because I've heard nothing - maybe the alternative only talk to ppl who they think matter at the club - Presidents club men, ex players. Be nice if they told the plebs what they were doing.
The alternative's campaign is starting to become very offensive to me. Just talking to a small group of ppl while the masses sit and wait. I'm sick of seeing ppl on sites give us a wink and say just wait. Too late for me - i need to know what they're going to do now. I don't care who endorses them - i want to hear what they're going to do different. So unless they've lined up a massive sponsorship deal with Telstra or whoever, can guarantee me a flag next year, i can't see what else they can possibly do seeing as a few of them are just as accountable for the losses we've incurred.
If it takes them this long to organise an election campaign - god help us with them running the club ::)
-
I may be mistaken but i am pretty sure i have read of Schwab taking some responsibility for the poor state of the club.
On the other hand i do not remember ever hearing Casey take any , if anyone has a quote of him taking responsibility please post it....
From the latest 'Fighting Tiger'
"Clearly, mistakes were made, but having made them, we at least knew how to avoid a repeat of them." Clinton Casey.
-
Firstly the 2004 budget is in the red to the tune of $2.2m not the Club.
In an e-mail to club members
che! ???
"That budget was based on more on-field success and a lot more growth in the marketing field.
"It also provided for a relatively high-cost football department budget, to get the club back on track with on-field success."
Football department costs amounted to $10.6 million last season, $500,000 over budget, but the 2005 forecast has been cut to $9.8 million.
In a crippling blow, football, membership, corporate, event and function incomes were all down last season.
"In summary, we were over-optimistic on revenue," Casey said last night.
Shear stupidity on Casey's and the rest of the board's part to pump more money into the footy dept. Fair enough you think long-term and keep Spud on for the sake of stability and to attract a real coach for 2005 but to waste even more money on Spud and Co. when it was bleedingly obvious they would fail was unbelievable :scream.
Good to see $800K has been slashed from the footy dept. Offloading Otto, Gas' pay cut and going for youth helps alot in that regard so it's not like the footy dept. is being deprived unlike what some (Schwab) claim.
Casey said $1.5 million in savings had already been identified.
"Those cost-savings are virtually set in concrete already because they're in player contracts, membership fulfilment and other areas that we can actually control," Casey said.
My question is given that this still naively equates to a $700K shortfall ($2.2m minus $1.5m), how is this difference expected to be made up with the knowledge that we'll project a small loss for 2005 followed by a profit in 2006. What revenue increases have be identified or realised and can be genuinely relied upon?
-
While Casey is confident of being re-elected at the December 22 annual general meeting, it's understood legendary former captain and coach Francis Bourke has joined the call for change.
Maybe Bourke, Barrot, Clay and Hart - who according to rumour file yesterday are coming out in support of the alternative - can maybe let us know (the ordinary supporters) why they're in support of them. Because I've heard nothing - maybe the alternative only talk to ppl who they think matter at the club - Presidents club men, ex players. Be nice if they told the plebs what they were doing.
The alternative's campaign is starting to become very offensive to me. Just talking to a small group of ppl while the masses sit and wait. I'm sick of seeing ppl on sites give us a wink and say just wait. Too late for me - i need to know what they're going to do now. I don't care who endorses them - i want to hear what they're going to do different. So unless they've lined up a massive sponsorship deal with Telstra or whoever, can guarantee me a flag next year, i can't see what else they can possibly do seeing as a few of them are just as accountable for the losses we've incurred.
If it takes them this long to organise an election campaign - god help us with them running the club ::)
Agree froars.
After the past few positive months when finally a long-term vision and plan has begun to be implemented, what concerns me is us ending up back with a board that caves in to outside pressures. This IMHO has been the cancer behind our past 20+ years of failure. Too many minority groups in panic mode because things aren't instantly going right putting undue influence on the Club because of who and how important they think they are. As a result this "forces" weak board members to cave in and make quick-fix solutions that appease these minority groups but keep us in a state of mediocrity.
-
This is a summary of what Schwab said:
* Although the $2m loss was brought to the board's attention in March, it wasn’t foreshadowed at the AGM when Casey said we would break even.
* Worst trading result in the history of the club and raises fundamental questions about the club’s financial solvency and ability to be successful moving forward.
* Every revenue stream being down – attendances, financial support from the coterie groups, functions and events - demonstrates Richmond people not feeling part of the club and not investing their money to make the club a success. Thinks the the only way that can be turned around is to understand that the Richmond people own the football club.
* Went on about how big a Club we are and that there’s a huge range of passionate and well off Richmond people who want to be part of the President’s Club, who want to be a part of the coterie group, who want to be a part of success.
* Said tying poor off-field results to on-field was a cop-out. Once again went on about how big a Club we are. For some bizarre reason blamed Casey's admin on playing more games at Telstra Dome ???. Games moved from the G to the Dome. Loss of blockbuster status.
* Asked by Connolly about footy dept. expediture and whether the cuts concerned him or were what was needed.... Schwab answered by saying two things concerned him. Firstly that you can’t run a football club which banks on on field results. You have to build a financial model for your club which makes you profitable every year irrespective of on-field results. Secondly the destruction of the financial model the Club had over recent years. Mentioned the Daphne regime in regard to always making profits. Said you can’t be competitive and win premierships given the situation with losses over the past 2 years. That we now have a situation where the AFL has had to guarantee our overdraft and is in the business planning process just in order to secure that situation.
* Added to that that the current business model is a loss making one. Whilst we get draft picks, if we can't pay 100% of the salary cap and match the best clubs for resourcing our footy dept – then the players we get will go elsewhere in the competition. Claimed that was the real risk for the Club at the moment.
* Connolly then said isn't that catch-22. Meaning needing 100% cap to be successful leads to overspending which then requires spending cuts to below 100%. Schwab said no cause we are big club and we can build a base of average crowds of 40,000, a membership of at least 30,000 (believes he can get 40,000). Said those two things will deliver the sponsorships that should make us profits every single year.
* Said we are $4m in terms of our overdraft facility which is the cap for that. Any more over that and we would have to go into the competitive balance fund. When asked if he would go cap in hand to the AFL, Schwab he'll try to avoid it but couldn't say for sure because he didn't know the full state of the books [Ed: your own fault Brendan ::) ]
* The alternative will be announcing their detailed plans during the next few weeks [Ed. the election will be over by then! ]
* Said Francis Bourke was an example of the "one of a considerable group of Richmond people who have encouraged us to take this stance". Said it was important for the upcoming election campaign.
* Said the alternative ticket has the support of the Presidents Club and all key coterie groups. Apparently according to Grybas Casey didn't invite to the BBQ members of the presidents club b/c 80% of them support the alternative.
* Was glad the jumper has been changed back. Said he was disappointed it was changed in the first place and it had been a crusade of his for the full sash's return [Ed. funny we've never heard this publicly until now]
-
Found it amusing that while Schwab was saying these things never once took any responsibility for his part in these "situations" nor did the Grybas, Connolly and Co. question him directly on his 5+ years on the board.
-
Went on about how big a Club we are and that there’s a huge range of passionate and well off Richmond people who want to be part of the President’s Club, who want to be a part of the coterie group, who want to be a part of success.
Hello, what’s stopping them? Passionate RFC my behind – passionate RFC people are already members of these groups. They don’t need success to buy their memberships – passionate people buy them when they’re down as well. Stuff these chardonnay sipping effwits and stuff someone like Schwab who believe these are the people we need.
Said tying poor off-field results to on-field was a cop-out. Once again went on about how big a Club we are. For some bizarre reason blamed Casey's admin on playing more games at Telstra Dome . Games moved from the G to the Dome. Loss of blockbuster status.
Agree with you MT, this guy is an absolute twerp – he was one of the ppl who made these decisions. Hey, I hate Telstra Dome, but has he canvassed the whole supporter base to see if this is why attendances are low. I think not – 25 years of woeful performances has led to this apathy – and of those years Schwab, Welsh, Macek, Humphris were all a part of. I don’t think he understands the supporters at all if he thinks Telstra Dome is the reason. There's a whole myriad of reasons people don't go to the footy these days - cost number one i reckon, can sit at home and watch on tellie number two IMO.
You have to build a financial model for your club which makes you profitable every year irrespective of on-field results.
Doh – instead of talking about what they taught you at business school, tell us how you achieve this. Dear Mr Good in Theory, we need to you to tell us how you achieve this in practice and different to what’s already happening.
Said the alternative ticket has the support of the Presidents Club and all key coterie groups. Apparently according to Grybas Casey didn't invite members of the presidents club b/c 80% supports the alternative.
Seeing there’s only about 30 of these tossers, who gives a pooh – I’m more interested in hearing what big Robbie says (the bloke who goes to the footy in his singlet and shorts in the middle of winter lol) – basically, what the ordinary supporter thinks. I'm a member of a coterie group, but i don't think my opinion is any better than any other supporter.
Was glad the jumper has been changed back. Said he was disappointed it was changed in the first place and it had been a crusade of his for the full sash's return
Yeah, you’re the man Brendan lol. Seeing you did such a grand job on your crusade, i reckon you should be in charge of them - vote 1 Brendan Schwab, property steward lol.
-
Oops, excellent job MT - hope you managed to stay awake for all of it lol
-
MT, did they ask him what he thought about current affairs - ie the good work Miler was doing, the appointment of Wallace, the resigning of Motorola and TAC and the new Silvertop sponsorship? Just curious if it was a balanced interview!
-
* Said the alternative ticket has the support of the Presidents Club and all key coterie groups. Apparently according to Grybas Casey didn't invite members of the presidents club b/c 80% supports the alternative.
It would have been nice to have the President's Club there because they are generous supporters, but the bottom line is it was Clinton's party at Clinton's house and he can invite or not invite whoever he wants.
-
MT, did they ask him what he thought about current affairs - ie the good work Miler was doing, the appointment of Wallace, the resigning of Motorola and TAC and the new Silvertop sponsorship? Just curious if it was a balanced interview!
Nah none of that. Not a positive word from Schwab as per usual :sleep. Hey from that interview you'd reckon the past 3 months in terms of Wallace coming on board, the cleaning out our list and 5 picks in the top 20 of the draft, sponsorship signings, etc.. never happened ::).
-
Agendas, agendas, agendas - 3AW shame on you.
I just re-read what you posted MT - i'm very sleepy now and going to bed!
BS = the best cure for insomia lol
-
Said the alternative ticket has the support of the Presidents Club and all key coterie groups. Apparently according to Grybas Casey didn't invite members of the presidents club b/c 80% supports the alternative.
Seeing there’s only about 30 of these tossers, who gives a pooh – I’m more interested in hearing what big Robbie says (the bloke who goes to the footy in his singlet and shorts in the middle of winter lol) – basically, what the ordinary supporter thinks. I'm a member of a coterie group, but i don't think my opinion is any better than any other supporter.
Exactly froars. There's over 27,000 of us not 30. Sure these coterie members deserve extra rewards due to the amount of $ they give to the Club but that doesn't give them the right to put undue pressure on or dictate to those who hold official positions what decisions should be made in terms of running the footy club. The Club belongs to all 27,000 members not a select minority >:(. Remember it's one vote per one adult membership regardless of the category.
btw you don't see the average member having a sooky-la-la because they weren't invited to Casey's BBQ.
I wonder if all this angst began with the Club removing that clause in Frawley's contract and allowing Spud to coach out his 5 year contract.
-
Oops, excellent job MT - hope you managed to stay awake for all of it lol
:sleep :lol
-
Here's the Hun artilce based on Schwab 3aw interview ( :sleep lol ). I thought Macek was suppose to be their leader not Schwab ::).
-----------
Casey excuse a 'cop out'
28 November 2004
Sunday Herald Sun
REBEL Richmond leader Brendan Schwab says Clinton Casey's decision to blame the club's dire $2.19 million trading loss on poor on-field results was a "cop out" and highlighted why he should be dumped.
As the alternative Richmond board steps up its bid to win power at next month's election, Schwab, who would be deputy president to Charles Macek, said it was time the Casey era finished.
The Tigers, who finished bottom last season, announced on Friday their huge trading loss following an $800,000 deficit last year.
In an e-mail to club members, Casey said part of the reason for last season's blow-out was the "budget was based on more on-field success and a lot more growth in the marketing field".
This has upset Schwab, who said a financial plan, which was not heavily influenced by on-field success, was needed to ensure the club posted profits regardless of where it finished.
"I think it's an absolute cop out," Schwab said yesterday.
"In 1999 when Clinton was first elected president, the club had the second biggest average crowd in the competition behind only Essendon, and that was only with one finals appearance since 1982.
"In 1999 the club made a profit of almost $700,000 and that was the fifth consecutive profit. The club had been profitable every year since the club was rebuilt in 1990 with the Save Our Skins campaign.
"We have a wonderful capacity to draw crowds, provided we put on the field a team which the Richmond people think will play true to the values of the jumper -- that's to show genuine commitment and plays some exciting and competitive footy."
The Macek-Schwab ticket will unveil its plans this week and believe its board has the right skills to reinvigorate the club.
"It's actually the worst trading result in the history of the club and raises fundamental questions about the club's financial solvency, ability to be successful moving forward and we think highlights the need for change to the board of the Richmond Football Club," Schwab told 3AW.
"That loss when it is analysed shows a failing in every key aspect of the financial operations of the club.
"Expenditure was not in accordance with budget, the football department was some $500,000 to $600,000 above budget and every revenue stream was down -- attendances, financial support from the coterie groups, functions and events.
"I think that demonstrates the alienation of the Richmond people."
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,11519698%255E20322,00.html
-
"It's actually the worst trading result in the history of the club and raises fundamental questions about the club's financial solvency, ability to be successful moving forward and we think highlights the need for change to the board of the Richmond Football Club," Schwab told 3AW.
This worst trading loss in history is totally misleading. Losing $2.2m is intolerable and the worst loss in raw dollars but it's in relation to a $20m+ turnover and a ~$600K debt. Compare that to the 1980s where we lost $1m a year loss out of a $2.5m turnover with a hidden $1.5m debt. Please can we have a bit of perspective instead of overdramatics Brendan ::).
-
This worst trading loss in history is totally misleading
I don't think the media are interested in facts MT. I don't think they even care what happens to the club, as long as they get a good quote and forget everything else that was said in the interview. None of his comments on Telstra Dome it appears which has totally floored me in the nerve he has to make them lol
-
It seems Schwab and co think the Richmond football club is their's and only they know what's best for it. Don't think they've ever spoken to the grass roots members....cause we don't matter. I've seen Clinton at family days etc walking around and talking to we 'ordinary folk'...not a bad effort given he's pretty much an introvert.
Cant' recall ever seeing Schwab at a family day....didn't fit into his busy schedule I guess. We're in big trouble if he doesn't realise that it's the ordinary 27,000 members that keep the club financially viable not the 100 or so coterie members Coterie members are just the icing on the cake and they appear in droves when the club is successful. Sponsorship is attracted by a large member base....after all they're not gearing their messages to the small coterie groups.
Froars is right about this group only being interested in what a small group of people think, inlcuding some past players. Just because you were fortunate enough to have played for the Tiges shouldn't really make your vote or your opinion more important. Most of us would have loved to have played for the Tiges...me wrong sex for a start...DOH!
Surely the person who buys their membership every year and goes to the footy every week, sitting in the outer rain, hail or shine (not in a Corporate box) loves the club every bit as much as someone who can AFFORD to be put in thousands.....and Brendan their vote counts!
The longer this election goes the madder I get!
-
* Said tying poor off-field results to on-field was a cop-out. Once again went on about how big a Club we are. For some bizarre reason blamed Casey's admin on playing more games at Telstra Dome ???. Games moved from the G to the Dome. Loss of blockbuster status.
In desperate times desperate people say some desperate things...... Now is seems Brendan needs another history lesson. Please remember that Schwab joined the board in Dec 1998. this comment is a cop out from him why??? Because for years the Clubs financial budgets have been to heavily based on the On-field performance of the team - want some proof
From the RFC Annual report of 2000 (page 1) when the CLub lost $640k it says that in 2001 the Club is bugeting for a small profit "subject to the level of profitablility of gaming & club facilities and on-field performance of the football team. From the 2001 Annual report (page 1) after we made the finals and and a $512k profit it says that in 2002 the Club is bugeting for a small profit "subject to the level of profitablility of gaming & club facilities and on-field performance of the football team.
Now whether Brendan wants to admit it or not he was part of the board during this time - for once just once will you take some responsibility for your time on the board..... :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead
And just to prove that this sort of blind hope in footy performance has been the norm rather than a Clinton Casey led financial led push this from the 1998 annual report when Leon Daphne was President....in 1999 the Club is bugeting for a small profit "subject to the level of profitablility of gaming & club facilities and on-field performance of the football team.
* Asked by Connolly about footy dept. expediture and whether the cuts concerned him or were what was needed.... Schwab answered by saying two things concerned him. Firstly that you can’t run a football club which banks on on field results.
See above - desperate times indeed
It seems Schwab and co think the Richmond football club is their's and only they know what's best for it. Don't think they've ever spoken to the grass roots members....cause we don't matter. I've seen Clinton at family days etc walking around and talking to we 'ordinary folk'...not a bad effort given he's pretty much an introvert.
Cant' recall ever seeing Schwab at a family day....didn't fit into his busy schedule I guess.
Passionately unavailabe to the average supporter perhaps bg25 ::)
Surely the person who buys their membership every year and goes to the footy every week, sitting in the outer rain, hail or shine (not in a Corporate box) loves the club every bit as much as someone who can AFFORD to be put in thousands.....and Brendan their vote counts!
Spot on bg25 - Member 23896 (whoever you are) is just as important as the our number 1 ticket holder the wonderful David Mandie.
The longer this election goes the madder I get!
Mad doesn't come close to how I feel about this whole saga :banghead
7 months this has been going on and Brendan and his mates have given me nothing. And if they think that having Francis Bourke's name on the reference is going to change my view of them then they are more deluded than I thought
As for Chalres he is off overseas I believe.
-
I may be mistaken but i am pretty sure i have read of Schwab taking some responsibility for the poor state of the club.
On the other hand i do not remember ever hearing Casey take any , if anyone has a quote of him taking responsibility please post it....
From the latest 'Fighting Tiger'
"Clearly, mistakes were made, but having made them, we at least knew how to avoid a repeat of them." Clinton Casey.
either i am being overly harsh or you are being overly generous but i don't see that as genuinely taking responsibility..
-
With a non senate style election now is there any reason why we can't have the best of both worlds
and have a board without casey schwab and welsh???
despite what some people see i fail to see what casey has done to improve things and he simply has to go likewise
even though i am not nearly as down on schwab as other people here my preference would be to have a board without him..
Do people think the current board minus casey and with extra numbers made up of the best of the alternative/independants couldn't work??
-
Interestingly on tiger-talk David Clayton said at a luncheon today Clinton said there
are already 35 candicates for the election..
theres going to be a lot of reading to do in a few weeks!!
-
With a non senate style election now is there any reason why we can't have the best of both worlds
and have a board without casey schwab and welsh???
As we'll be voting for the "best" 9 individuals then there's nothing stop us having a board without Casey, Schwab and Welsh apart from the members' voting otherwise. People might throw Gary Cameron in that group as well as he is our treasurer. It wouldn't surprise me if a number of members feel that same way HB.
Do people think the current board minus casey and with extra numbers made up of the best of the alternative/independants couldn't work??
If the new board whoever they are act in the Club's best interests then IMO they all should be able to work together. The hard decisions have been made and the new direction developed over the past few months just needs to be allowed time and patience now to come to fruition. However, if these people are more concerned with appeasing egos, factional interests and outspoken minority groups and as a result interfere in what Wright, Miller and Wallace are doing then it won't and IMO that is the real threat out of all of this to finally achieving on-field success.
Interestingly on tiger-talk David Clayton said at a luncheon today Clinton said there
are already 35 candicates for the election..
theres going to be a lot of reading to do in a few weeks!!
I read that too HB...Sheesh! :gobdrop.
I'd guess on the bright side we'll be spoiled for choice :-\.
-
What's happening at your club
28 November 2004
Sunday Herald Sun
TIGERS president Clinton Casey is spending the weekend in Torquay working on the draft of his re-election manifesto.
All candidates for the December 20 election need to have nominated by Tuesday, then must submit a one-page dossier on their worth to the club.
The flyers will be distributed with voting forms before the election, when members will choose between Casey's incumbents of [sic -> or] the Brendan Schwab-organised team.
----------------------
Nice spot Torquay :thumbsup
It isn't a choice b/w Casey and Schwab's tickets as it isn't a senate style election.
-
I may be mistaken but i am pretty sure i have read of Schwab taking some responsibility for the poor state of the club.
On the other hand i do not remember ever hearing Casey take any , if anyone has a quote of him taking responsibility please post it....
From the latest 'Fighting Tiger'
"Clearly, mistakes were made, but having made them, we at least knew how to avoid a repeat of them." Clinton Casey.
either i am being overly harsh or you are being overly generous but i don't see that as genuinely taking responsibility..
Who knows what is genuine or not HB. You only said "...do not remember ever hearing Casey take any..." This as opposed to "...i am pretty sure i have read of Schwab taking some responsibility..." Perhaps a quote would be nice :-*
-
i'm working on that , think it might even hidden in this thread somewhere...
I'll try and see if it exists over the next few days , providing i don't get lost in this thread...
-
Schwab and Macek can get every player who has ever played in a Richmond premiership to back them, but it still won’t be enough to make me vote for them. Like others, I wish they’d tell us why these former players are coming out in support of them, because I don’t get it. Where have they shown that they have any idea how to run a footy club? That’s what I’d like to know.
The Alternative group doesn't seem to have a clue about any of the real issues. And if they suddenly do now, they have simply left their run too late. Their reactive and conservative approach to all things doesn't inspire me one bit. And their lack of awareness and initiative even less. What an insult to people’s intelligence these people continue to be. Especially when their idea of getting support is to take pot shots at Casey and tear at the heart strings of supporters by getting former players to go in to bat for them. What about giving us some indication that they might know something about running a footy club.
Not much, if anything, of the Alternative group's stance adds up to me. Whichever way I look at it, everything seems to point to a personal grudge against Casey. For reasons I don't know or understand. The fact that the appointment of Miller means the real and deep seated issues that have held this Club back for years can now finally become a thing of the past, with some hard work to follow, seems to have escaped this group completely. And, because of that, what this group’s all about completely escapes me.
No doubt, Casey’s made mistakes, but others must know something I don't, because I don't understand the attack on Casey. Whatever people think of him, it seems to me that he has been the catalyst for any changes that are taking place now. Changes that I, and no doubt many others, have been hoping to see for some years. And I for one am ecstatic about those changes, because these weren't changes that could be made by simply appointing a new coach. And aren't changes that any previous Board had the initiative or stomach to instigate.
How about people like Schwab and Welsh taking some responsibility. If the President is voted in by the other Directors, where's the responsibility from these Directors for voting in the wrong person - more than once? And just because they don't like the decision they have made, why is RFC and its supporters being made to pay with a long and drawn out campaign that feels like it’s never going to end? You people stuffed up, now get on with it and stop wasting our time. After nearly a whole year of this garbage, this comes across as nothing more than little boys with their noses out of joint.
It seems that if we want to know how they would run RFC, we just have to rewind to the future. Because they seem to lack the same awareness and initiative that previous Boards did. No doubt, when things ultimately got a bit sticky, their idea of taking action and solving things would be to get a new coach. Why not? This master stroke could always renew the enthusiasm of everyone and make it look as though they knew what they were doing and were men of action. Never mind if they created an unaccountable environment within the Club and stifled the development of our players, because of their short-sighted, quick fix approach. As long as the finances were all in order, that's all that really matters, isn't it?
That might be enough for them, but it's not for me and, judging by the way they have run their campaign and the focus of that campaign, their idea of running a footy club clearly lacks any sort of vision and the awareness of what the real problems are and have been at RFC. The only vision I get is of them taking us back to the good old 1990's when we had money in the bank, but weren't competitive against the top teams. Back then, that didn't seem enough to stir any emotion in those on the Board. No, they seemed united that things were AOK in the RFC comfort zone that they helped create and/or perpetuate. And nor does our on-field performance seem to stir anything in the Alternative group now. But, for some reason, our finances do. I guess that's all they have to undermine Casey with.
How does their campaign even get to stand up? The AFL has checked things and they don't have a problem with the Club's plans for the future. And if RFC had done anything under-handed, wouldn't we have been raked over the coals by the AFL or someone by now? Wasn't Eddie President of his Club when they finished at the bottom of the ladder and made a huge loss? Who cares now? They're making loads of money, but they still don't have a premiership to show for it. The Kangaroos made no money, yet won two flags in the 1990's.
And unless it was to pay inflated prices to under-performing footballers, previous Richmond Boards wouldn't have spent more money on the footy department than was necessary, so is it any wonder we had money. Yes, we're all concerned about RFC and its finances, but there's more to this than just money, isn't there? Otherwise, I might as well just go barrack for the Commonwealth Bank. They even have our colours and I could get really excited about the profits they make every year, if I tried. And it'd save on a whole lot of unnecessary misery and grief, I suppose.
If there are over 35 candidates who have already nominated, then we can bypass those of the past and bring in those that come with no baggage. Even if it takes a week and a half just to get through reading all the candidates’ papers, it’ll be worth it not to have to deal with small minds such as those on the alternative ticket.
-
Sensational post TS :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow
Top stuff :thumbsup :bow :thumbsup :bow
:cheers
How about people like Schwab and Welsh taking some responsibility. If the President is voted in by the other Directors, where's the responsibility from these Directors for voting in the wrong person - more than once? And just because they don't like the decision they have made, why is RFC and its supporters being made to pay with a long and drawn out campaign that feels like it’s never going to end? You people stuffed up, now get on with it and stop wasting our time. After nearly a whole year of this garbage, this comes across as nothing more than little boys with their noses out of joint.
This has been my biggest problem with this alternative since the beginning. Responsibility - they haven't and will not take any, they just continually point fingers and apportion blame.
I have harped on this so many times that I am sick of it but hey - if it's good enough for the alternative I suppose it is good enough for me.
If there are 35 candidates who have nominated for the right reasons and not to serve their own egos then it's great because finally it would appear that maybe just maybe people have been snapped out of their apathy towards the RFC baordroom.
-
Sensational post TS :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow
Top stuff :thumbsup :bow :thumbsup :bow
:cheers
What he said :bow
-
:bow
I dont have to say anything
-
Top post TS :bow
Yes, we're all concerned about RFC and its finances, but there's more to this than just money, isn't there? Otherwise, I might as well just go barrack for the Commonwealth Bank. They even have our colours and I could get really excited about the profits they make every year, if I tried. And it'd save on a whole lot of unnecessary misery and grief, I suppose.
LOL
More like the NAB this year ;D
----------------
Billy Barrot and Francis Bourke were on SEN this morning with KB.
KB asked Barrot had he made up his mind on who to support yet and he answered "well I don't want to answer that but let's put it this way..." then when on to cane Casey which made it crystal clear which side he supports. Francis was more diplomatic and said although Casey had always been amicable with him personally, he believed after 5 years it was time for a change. Francis supported the alternative because he basically has alot time for Macek, Schwab was a passionate Richmond person who had made a stand with Welsh, and that he knew Humphris from his time on the board with him in the late 80s around the S.O.S period. Francis said he had made his decision independently after being asked for his support by the alternative ticket.
Both referred to Leon Daphne and how Casey inherited a profitable Club from Daphne. Billy claimed we were now $3m in debt (would be interesting to find out where he pulled this figure from ???).
Apparently there will be 8 former players putting their name down in support of the alternative in the next few days - Barrot, Bourke, Clay, Brendon Gale, Broderick, Hart?, ....
KB had Keane and Rex supporting Casey.
-
:thumbsup thanks guys and gals.
This group is all about democracy, even though they wanted the Club handed over to them, initially.
And they're all about unity, even though they currently seem to be splitting the Club into a million pieces. Makes sense to me. NOT. :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
MT, did Bourke actually give any reasons for supporting the alternative other than it's time for a change and that he got on better with them than Casey?
Schwab and Welsh made a stand did they???? They didn't tell anyone about it at the time :banghead
Bourke's right Humphris was around in the SOS times...think he might have been treasurer. What did SOS stand for again...oh that's right 'Save Our Skin"....so who's going to manage the finances this time around? Not a good track record when you consider all we here from this group is how Casey (personally I might add) has lost the RFC all this money :banghead
Casey has been around for 5 years...so were half these others. We've hardly set the world on fire with all our premierships over the last 25 years lol. Unlike other clubs we haven't gone to the AFL for money and they have agreed to our business plan. Are the new group going back to the AFL with a new one?
Caro had us losing all our sponsorships as well...didn't happen. The doom and gloom merchants have so far not been that accurate.
-
MT, did Bourke actually give any reasons for supporting the alternative other than it's time for a change and that he got on better with them than Casey?
Basically that we've been poor on and off-field and after 5 years under the one regime it's time to give someone else a go.
I find it amusing that Welsh escapes any criticism or blame for our poor on-field results despite him being 5 years on the board as football director (in tandem with TJ) with the job of assessing the performance of the footy department.
-
Basically, I don't think Francis or any of them can come up with a reason for supporting them - just sounds like he's supporting him because of the Alan Schwab connection. How anyone could want a full upheaval of the club when it wasn't warranted amazes me.
Anyone know what happened to all the doom and gloom stories that were supposed to come out. Lots of silence on that front. Surely, these ppl didn't put the club through all this just for the $2.19m loss. Be glad when it's all over!
-
The majority of the reason that we are in so much dept is due to 2 people
Mark Brayshaw and Ian Campbell.
While Casey was President, the CEO still has a lot of pull around the place.
I am not sure who to vote for, but as many people say, Sometimes you are better with the devil you know, rather than the one you dont.
-
two things will happen.
Greg Miller will stand for the board.
If the alternative win, Miller will leave or get the flick, lets see whats happens shell we
-
I have no problems with employees standing for the board like some - at least if he stood and nominated one side or the other, we'd know where he stood. If he stands with Casey, then you'd know there must be a darn good reason why he supports him.
Be interesting to see if he makes comment on who he supports, even if he doesn't stand.
-
'Supports Casey !
-
Shame i didn't support him - would be an easy decision :rollin
Greg Miler for President - got a nice ring to it hey!
-
Sometimes you are better with the devil you know, rather than the one you dont.
I keep thinking more along the lines of "out of the frying pan and into the fire."
-
Sometimes you are better with the devil you know, rather than the one you dont.
I keep thinking more along the lines of "out of the frying pan and into the fire."
LOL FF
If Miller was to run for the board he would be taking up an honorary position as opposed to his paid one he has now unless he does both? I'd guess that's allowed as Casey was fill-in CEO for about 6 months last year. I personally hope Miller doesn't run for the board so he doesn't become caught up in Club politics. If he were to leave or get the flick I wouldn't want to the board members who allowed him go. They would be on par with those who let Hafey go.
-
I find it amusing that Welsh escapes any criticism or blame for our poor on-field results despite him being 5 years on the board as football director (in tandem with TJ) with the job of assessing the performance of the footy department.
MT, I found it even more amusing that when TJ left the Club, he seemed to know and understand exactly what was wrong with the place.
Too bad he didn’t have the same “know how” when he was at the Club for all those years, to do something about it then. Pretty much like any of them that have been there before and, now that the fog has lifted, they suddenly profess to knowing how to save us, despite them not being able to do so for all the years they were previously at the Club.
All talk and not much else. They all had more than ample time and opportunity to change things, but none of them ever did. I prefer to move on from these people.
How can any of them escape criticism? They should instead be exposed for the narrow minds they really are. Because if some of them had their way, no doubt Danny’s contract would have been terminated mid-stream. And if that had that happened, the changes we have seen now would never have eventuated, in the way they have.
People can argue all they like that things would have turned out the same. I just don’t think so, because we’ve had the same pattern occurring over and over and over for years. And that’s all these past minds know and that’s all they can re-produce, time and again. Because they don’t even know that their solutions are what cause the problems in the first place.
But if people like the past so much, let’s bring back all the past masterminds who were able to bring us so much success and so much to be proud of. We don’t remember the past to laugh at those who made the mistakes in the first place. We remember it so we don’t make the same mistakes as they did.
And if we do then that’s our fault that we’ve made the same mistake because we didn’t learn from them. And it’s then no longer the fault of any past players, directors or anyone else associated with the Club. Because, for the first time that I know of, RFC members have the opportunity to have their say and decide the direction this Club now takes. Backwards or forwards?
-
'Big Four' to challenge Richmond
November 30, 2004 - 3:24PM
AAP - The Age
Richmond was "standing at the crossroads", according to the group which aims to take control at the AFL club's December 22 board election.
The Charles Macek-led ticket on Tuesday released its publicity material ahead of the election, labelling itself Big Four.
The Tigers were once among the top four Melbourne-based AFL clubs alongside Carlton, Essendon and Collingwood, but they have not won a premiership since 1980 and several barren years on and off the field have sparked this election battle.
Big Four aims to unseat president Clinton Casey and the current board.
Included in the opposition's publicity material is expressions of support from club legends such as Francis Bourke, Dick Clay and Jim Jess.
"The record of the past five years speaks for itself - no-one can claim that we are better off than we were five years ago," Bourke said in a statement.
"That's why I am supporting change and the Tigers' Big Four."
The nine-person opposition group has printed 25,000 pamphlets for distribution to club members later this week.
"Richmond is standing at the crossroads ... we are at the bottom of the ladder and facing accumulated losses of up to $3 million for the past two years alone.
"Instead of fighting for the flag, we are fighting for our very survival."
Big Four personally attacked Casey, also saying in the pamphlet: "For too many of the past five years, the current president and what remains of his deeply divided board have looked for the quick fix, the easy solution - and then blamed everyone but themselves for the perilous state in which the club now finds itself."
The opposition group outlined its strategy, saying it was built on four "pillars - The Tiger, The Team, The Fans, The Finances."
But Casey and the board so far are fighting a skilful campaign to hold office.
Richmond did extremely well at this month's national draft and Casey held a function at his luxury inner-suburban home on the day to introduce the new recruits to key supporters.
The Tigers also unveiled their new guernsey late last week.
All the talk out of Punt Rd is that the mood is much better around the club after three months of overhaul, with Terry Wallace's appointment as new coach the biggest change.
© 2004 AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Sport/Big-Four-to-challenge-Richmonds/2004/11/30/1101577471035.html
-
I find it amusing that Welsh escapes any criticism or blame for our poor on-field results despite him being 5 years on the board as football director (in tandem with TJ) with the job of assessing the performance of the footy department.
MT, I found it even more amusing that when TJ left the Club, he seemed to know and understand exactly what was wrong with the place.
Too bad he didn’t have the same “know how” when he was at the Club for all those years, to do something about it then. Pretty much like any of them that have been there before and, now that the fog has lifted, they suddenly profess to knowing how to save us, despite them not being able to do so for all the years they were previously at the Club.
All talk and not much else. They all had more than ample time and opportunity to change things, but none of them ever did. I prefer to move on from these people.
How can any of them escape criticism? They should instead be exposed for the narrow minds they really are. Because if some of them had their way, no doubt Danny’s contract would have been terminated mid-stream. And if that had that happened, the changes we have seen now would never have eventuated, in the way they have.
People can argue all they like that things would have turned out the same. I just don’t think so, because we’ve had the same pattern occurring over and over and over for years. And that’s all these past minds know and that’s all they can re-produce, time and again. Because they don’t even know that their solutions are what cause the problems in the first place.
But if people like the past so much, let’s bring back all the past masterminds who were able to bring us so much success and so much to be proud of. We don’t remember the past to laugh at those who made the mistakes in the first place. We remember it so we don’t make the same mistakes as they did.
And if we do then that’s our fault that we’ve made the same mistake because we didn’t learn from them. And it’s then no longer the fault of any past players, directors or anyone else associated with the Club. Because, for the first time that I know of, RFC members have the opportunity to have their say and decide the direction this Club now takes. Backwards or forwards?
Well for a start we wouldn't have gotten Wallace as coach and that's not because Wallace wouldn't have come either, it is because the Alternative didn't want Wallace to begin with, they wanted Harvey and that would have been disasterous, they wanted Harvey because he would have been cheaper (ala frawley all over again) These guys will take cost cutting to the extreme, yes we might make small profits, very small profits at that, but we will never be a major force football wise
-
Bryan Wood representing the BIG4 was on SEN at about 5.20pm. Seriuosly this ticket should not allow someone of its members to speak. ::)
In summary he said (this all prior to getting out of the car in disgust >:()
- he began by saying that the Macek ticket was the reason that Terry Wallace was coach at Richmond. He eventually changed that to say the macek ticket had a hand in the appointment Wallace.
- Casey takes no responsibility for anything all he does is blame everyone else. Funny I know a couple of blokes on the Macek ticket that have the same problem. For the last five years the board has done nothing and should be made accountable - does that include all board members during that time Bryan ::).
- Since Clinton Casey has been president the Club have made losses evey year. This is not true but hey why let the facts get in the way >:(
- Bryan Wood is not a finance person but a football person (it showed). :P But Casey has lost a bucket load of money
- the fact that the BIG4 have all these past players supporting them shows there has to be change.
- WP pulls over and gets out of the car to hyperventalate :help
Facts:
RFC Financial Results since 2000. Casey took over as President in 2000. Both Casey and Daphne are credited as President for the 1999/2000 year
2000 - $639,667 loss
2001 - $512,560 profit
2002 - $314,519 profit
2003 - $882,100 loss
2004 - $2.19 million loss
Bryan I know you confessed to not being a finance person but if you are going to make accusations get your facts straight. It doesn't help your cause.
I believe at little later Casey phoned in because SEN replayed part of his interview just beofre they spoke to Woosha. CC said that (this is the bit they replayed) that Schwab was on the Audit committe and signed off on the budgets for the last 6 years and Welsh was responsible for the Footy Dept and they should take some responsibility for there involvement.
Woosha countered by saying CC is an Essendon supporter and that the last 3 years were the worst of his life as Director. And he was not responsible for the Footy Dept TJ was. If you were disgusted Woosha why did you stand for re-election last year???
Geoff Raines then phoned and guess what he made sense :bow :bow :bow
As a father he said he was very impressed with how his some has been looked after since he went to the CLub and as a past player he said he hoped that all these blokes backing the alternatives or Casey's ticket had done the "due dilligence" before making their choice and had not just based their views on the fact the club had finshed last
-
- he began by saying that the Macek ticket was the reason that Terry Wallace was coach at Richmond. He eventually changed that to say the macek ticket had a hand in the appointment Wallace.
OMG!...That is hilarious :rollin. What because Miller told Wood that Wallace was going to be our coach and he said ok ::). The alternative were too busy making threats about petitioning for a EGM while we were chasing Wallace >:(.
Got to laugh at that "quick fix" comment in their press release. Talk about hypocritical. So having 4 coaches in 5 years wasn't searching for a quick fix? ::). At least I see positive direction now compared to finishing 9th every year, trading top picks for the likes of Hilton and Biddiscombe, Cambo wanting to walk because he saw no future and no one decent wanting to coach us. But hey we were so much better off in 1999 because at least penny-pinched to make a tiny profit. What a great time in RFC history that was ::).
As they become more desperate their talk is becoming very spiteful and personal. By all means argue for change based on Casey's on and off-field record in his time in office but to go on about all this 'Essendon supporter' crap is disgraceful IMHO. Should we get rid of Miller and Wallace as well while we're at it. How narrowminded can you get! >:(. This attitude explains why it took us over 80 years to recognise Dan Minogue cause he came from Collingwood even though he was the main drive behind our first 2 flags ::).
-
As much as i want casey out the alternative are really losing me..
Fair enough attack caseys record etc but as has been pointed
out they are going overboard and really need to start showing what they will do
to improve the club..
Bring on a mixed board with certain people not on it...
-
Just for all candidates' attention, the RFC has been a basketcase for 25 years - stop trying to fob blame on each other and tell me what you're going to do about it. So far, i'm seeing right before my eyes what the Casey team are doing - WRIGHT, MILLER, WALLACE, A NEW RECRUITING TACT IN GOING FOR KIDS - but i'm still yet to hear a thing from the other side apart from the fact they've got glossy brochures saying we're part of the big 4. Well, got news for them, a lot of hard work has to be done to get us back up into the big 4 before then and so far you still haven't said a thing about how you will achieve this.
I really hope RFC supporters aren't swayed by players coming out on either side and saying who they support, or listening to grand speeches about how it was in the good old days. I hope they actually analyse where we're at at the moment, including the financial predicament, and base who they vote for on the credentials of all candidates on all sides - and don't forget independents - and see if we can get the best team to go forward.
I can't wait till i get a list of all candidates to make my judgments on them, although i've made my culling list already and a few people are on that already - you ain't got a chance in hell Schwab and Welsh lol.
-
Geoff Raines then phoned and guess what he made sense
As a father he said he was very impressed with how his some has been looked after since he went to the CLub and as a past player he said he hoped that all these blokes backing the alternatives or Casey's ticket had done the "due dilligence" before making their choice and had not just based their views on the fact the club had finshed last
Boy, is he going to have to reassess this statement next year lol :rollin ;)
-
Woosha countered by saying CC is an Essendon supporter
Woosha, where was Bryan Wood when the Tiges were going down the gurgler in the late '80s/'90s?
Not helping his old club out that's for sure.
Do you remember Woody deserting this club he luvs in the '80s - where did he go to?
-
Geoff Raines then phoned and guess what he made sense
As a father he said he was very impressed with how his some has been looked after since he went to the CLub and as a past player he said he hoped that all these blokes backing the alternatives or Casey's ticket had done the "due dilligence" before making their choice and had not just based their views on the fact the club had finshed last
Boy, is he going to have to reassess this statement next year lol :rollin ;)
:rollin :lol ;)
-
Any chance we can turn this into a Cambo bashing thread so we can get some input from JohnF lol :rollin
Interested in your thoughts JF!
-
Nearly choked on my cornflakes this morning when I saw that one of the "pillars" was FANS. Have Schwab and co spoken to any fans...have they checked out how we feel?
They treat us with such disdain that they think (hope) that by dragging out club legends to support them that we will blindly vote for them regardless of what they have to offer.
Tell me HOW , not give me motherhood statements - Alternative:
Build a membership base of 40,000 - DOH! Casey's regime is the only regime to do anything postive re membership initiatives....reward and recognition etc. Does this mean that the Alternative will start talking to members rather than coterie groups and past players?
Ensure an average attendance of 40,000 - how???? Playing good competitive footy will help...wait a minute isn't this what Wallace has told us already that we'll do.
Generate blockbuster crowds of 60,000 - see above.
and so it goes on. Not one word of how any of this will be achieved. Give me a break.
-
And another thing - boy am I mad this morning.
All this talk that the current board has had five years to turn things around and therefore it's time to go....HELLO! What has any other board done to turn to things around, what has Schwab done, or Macek or Welsh or Humphris? We've been a basketcase for over 20 years - long before Casey got there. Don't these people get it :banghead.
Finally I can see changes that I think will make a difference and I'm now scared witless that we're about to go back to the past. Back to a conservative, take no risks board, back to a sacking a coach if things don't go according to plans etc etc etc.
Oh well, at least they can all sit around talking about the good old days! I'm sick of looking back - let's start talking about the bright new future!
-
I am alot calmer this morning - that's only because I haven't read the HUN. I have read the Age but Caro unfortuantely, for me at least, has very little or no credibility on this topic now because her continued bias towards the alternative shines like a beacon.
I will be perfectly honest up until yesterday I had penciled in Bryan Wood as someone from the alternative that I was considering voting for. After yesterday afternoons effort on SEN - he has lost me completely.
To make statements that were blatantly untrue clearly showed he had/has no idea of the facts - I cannot vote for anyone who is not aware of the facts. Scare mongering and persoanl attacks don't win elections - they alienate.
I am not disputing that the Club has lost money over the last 5 years but to say as Wood did yesterday that the Club has lost money every year Casey has been president is a not true. The annual reports clearly show that. FACT
And another thing - boy am I mad this morning.
Don't blame you.
Finally I can see changes that I think will make a difference and I'm now scared witless that we're about to go back to the past. Back to a conservative, take no risks board, back to a sacking a coach if things don't go according to plans etc etc etc.
Oh well, at least they can all sit around talking about the good old days! I'm sick of looking back - let's start talking about the bright new future!
I think that is the thing that scares most of us bg25 - 20+ years we have been a rabble. The deep seated problems of this Club have been hidden away time and time again. Whether it be because of a finals appearance and some false hope that we were about to be a force again or because we were rattling tins because we faced extinction the problems have been the same and no one has bothered to try and fix them.
Finally those problems are being addressed and now we face it all being stripped away. :banghead :banghead
Woosha countered by saying CC is an Essendon supporter
Woosha, where was Bryan Wood when the Tiges were going down the gurgler in the late '80s/'90s?
Not helping his old club out that's for sure.
Do you remember Woody deserting this club he luvs in the '80s - where did he go to?
Wood was running around being the runner for Essendon no less.
So Casey was a coterie member at the Dons - used it as part of his business to entertain clients (I've been told) - big bloody deal >:( Businesses do it all the time - if that's the best you can do fellows then you really are deseprate beyond belief.
As they become more desperate their talk is becoming very spiteful and personal. By all means argue for change based on Casey's on and off-field record in his time in office but to go on about all this 'Essendon supporter' crap is disgraceful IMHO.
It's a bit like kids fighting over the last piece of birthday cake ::)
As I said these continual personal attacks on Casey are a joke - actual they are boring. I am starting to wonder if the BIG4 have any idea who else is on the board at the moment because they don't seem to know their names at all :help :banghead
Finally, Greg Miller was Sport927 this morning as was Charles who's obviously back in Australia as soon as the links are available they will be posted
-
Finally I can see changes that I think will make a difference and I'm now scared witless that we're about to go back to the past. Back to a conservative, take no risks board, back to a sacking a coach if things don't go according to plans etc etc etc.
Me too bg25. I couldn’t stand it. When we finally look like we’re finally getting somewhere, something like this comes along that could potentially throw a spanner in the works.
I really think the changes to the list, the players we now have and the new environment being created can allow the players to get the best out of themselves. But if this goes horribly wrong, we could just end up back where we’ve been all these years. How cruel would that be? :banghead
-
Heard on SEN this morning that apparently the Alternative ticket's papers have been rejected by the Returning Officer (?) or whoever it is that oversees these things.
This is the mail out members will get of all the candidates who have nominated for election to the Board.
They apparently have to do theirs over again before they will be accepted as conforming to the guidelines of acceptable material to go out to members.
Hope this doesn't delay things and so members have less time in which to make their decision on who they will vote for.
-
Heard on SEN this morning that apparently the Alternative ticket's papers have been rejected by the Returning Officer (?) or whoever it is that oversees these things.
This is the mail out members will get of all the candidates who have nominated for election to the Board.
They apparently have to do theirs over again before they will be accepted as conforming to the guidelines of acceptable material to go out to members.
Hope this doesn't delay things and so members have less time in which to make their decision on who they will vote for.
Yep the alternative ticket's pamphlets have been rejected by PWC who are independently auditing the election on behalf of the Returning Officer. You can't bag your opponents. You must only state what you offer the Club in reference to facts. Brendan would know this being on the governance subcommittee for over 5 years.
Schwab was on SEN again today this time blaming the current board for the alternative's stuff up saying Casey was basically trying to rig the election by blocking the alternative's info. Said not many people voting last time was Casey's fault and he's trying to do it again. Good excuse for you Brendan. Once again you fail to accept any responsibility for own failings ::) :sleep. He also got the day wrong for closing nominations as he said these one page summaries were being sent out today. Don Lord then rang in afterwards saying nominees have until 8pm today so how could the Club send off these the nominees summaries before that and that the alternative still have time to fix their's.
-
Schwab was on SEN again today this time blaming the current board for the alternative's stuff up saying Casey was basically trying to rig the election by blocking the alternative's info. Said not many people voting last time was Casey's fault and he's trying to do it again. Good excuse for you Brendan. Once again you fail to accept any responsibility for own failings ::) :sleep. He also got the day wrong for closing nominations as he said these one page summaries were being sent out today. Don Lord then rang in afterwards saying nominees have until 8pm today so how could the Club send off these the nominees summaries before that and that the alternative still have time to fix their's.
Yes Charlie Macek was rambling on about the same thing this morning on Sport927 (the link is on another thread). He said the current board were refusing to post out thier info as was the "so called independant election officer".
Excuse me the consitution is very clear 1 A4 page per individual nominee - it aint that difficult - pretty simple actually I would have thought.
Any chance we can get an more examples of their incompetence before the weeks out?
-
Geez it was Clinton's fault that he didn't check whether Rex was a member or not! But hell obviously it was also up to Clinton as well to check out what info would be accepted by the Returning Officer and then inform the alternatives. Got news for you Brendan - GET OFF YOUR ARSE and check out something for your self. Quite happy to point the finger aren't you :banghead :banghead
I tell you Clinton's obviously got those WMDs hidden down at Punt Rd somewhere, cause he sure is responsible for everything else.
God help me if these people are put in charge of running the club - they can't even run their friggin election campaign.
Getting madder :banghead :banghead :banghead
-
I tell you Clinton's obviously got those WMDs hidden down at Punt Rd somewhere, cause he sure is responsible for everything else.
Does this mean we may have found Osama :help
I am waiting for that one next ;D
-
I tell you Clinton's obviously got those WMDs hidden down at Punt Rd somewhere, cause he sure is responsible for everything else.
The $2m dollar loss left me in shock but the teamwork of Wright, Miller and Wallace over the past few months along with our new stack of kids has me in awe :thumbsup
-
The $2m dollar loss left me in shock but the teamwork of Wright, Miller and Wallace over the past few months along with our new stack of kids has me in awe :thumbsup
:thumbsup :thumbsup good stuff MT
Did you know it's been rainign today and it's all Clinton Casey's fault - it's a disgrace really ;D
-
Now the sun is out ! Bloody Clinton ;D