One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: mightytiges on July 03, 2004, 02:32:36 AM
-
Schwab leads latest charge to oust Casey at Richmond
By Caroline Wilson
realfooty.theage.com.au
July 3, 2004
Four-time premiership players Dick Clay and Bryan Wood are spearheading Brendan Schwab's bid to take over the troubled Richmond Football Club.
The reform ticket plans to confront embattled president Clinton Casey over the next fortnight and call on him to resign. Should Casey refuse, Schwab will take his six-man ticket to the Richmond members through an extraordinary general meeting.
Former Tigers finance director Mike Humphris, a liquidation specialist who helped save the club in 1990, also has joined forces with Schwab and another former director, 1980 premiership wingman Peter Welsh.
The sixth challenger is Transport Accident Commission executive Colin Radford, a former media adviser to Premier Steve Bracks and now head of the TAC's corporate affairs division.
It is believed that Schwab, 36, also has won the support of the Richmond Past Players' Association and at least three former club presidents, none of whom was prepared to comment last night.
The past players are understood to have a list of grievances regarding internal issues at Tigerland and have questioned the club's lack of enthusiasm in pursuing Kevin Sheedy to coach the club. The past players' president, Michael Perry, refused to comment last night.
The Schwab challenge is not linked to rebel member Michael Pahoff's lone challenge and it is believed Schwab's team will prepare a new list of 100 signatures, consisting largely of past players, officials and high-profile supporters, to take on Casey. Nor is Schwab linked to Charles Macek, who has withdrawn his challenge bid.
Clay, 59, was interviewed with former teammate Merv Keane at a recent Tiger pre-match coterie function and both past players were scathing regarding the club's current state.
A wingman in the club's most famous centre line and a member of the 1967, '69, '73 and '74 premiership teams, Clay is the only member of the ticket not to have officially committed himself, but was expected to do so over the weekend.
Wood is believed to have joined forces with Schwab last week. The 50-year-old former wingman played in three Tiger premierships - 1973, '74 and '80 - and also the Bombers' 1985 flag-winning side.
The Schwab ticket is expected to win the public backing of recently appointed AFL Players' Association executive Brendon Gale and former Richmond captain Matthew Knights, who said last week Casey must go.
The TAC is a major sponsor of the Tigers but is reviewing that agreement after 15 years.
Radford, 37, a lifelong Richmond supporter who donated his life savings to the "Save Our Skins" campaign in 1990, is believed to have made himself absent from the current sponsorship deliberations at the TAC.
Schwab, the chief executive of the Australian Entertainment Industry Association, was in Sydney last night and unavailable for comment.
He is pushing his challenge in part because of concerns among his support group that Casey is putting his own survival ahead of the club's interests.
On Thursday, Casey began his campaign through the club's website.
With new chief executive Steve Wright set to take over at Richmond, the Schwab group is concerned the club will now push to appoint a coach quickly in a bid to shore up its own support.
Danny Frawley already has agreed to abide by a new appointment before his time is up.
The club sits 14th on the AFL ladder with four wins and has been the worst-performed AFL side over more than two decades.
Schwab resigned from the club's board alongside Welsh in March, citing serious corporate governance concerns and joint disillusionment over the revelation that Richmond was projecting a $2 million loss after predicting a profit of between $200,000 and $600,000 late last year.
http://realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/07/02/1088488158296.html?oneclick=true
-
Current board ( 8 )
Clinton Casey, Garry Cameron, Robert Turner, Don Lord, Gary March, John Matthies, Anthony Mithin, Alan Nicklos (Motorola).
vs
Alternative ticket ( 6 )
Brendan Schwab, Peter Welsh, Dick Clay, Bryan Wood, Mike Humphris and Colin Radford (TAC).
The constitution allows for 9 board members.
-
A pretty formidable lineup - who would be the likely leader of the group do you think.
-
Presumably Schwab is the leader froars.
3 ex-board members still makes me wary and although they've finally been named (albeit it took Caro to do it) we still don't know their future plans and policies for the Club. Famous names and backers don't impress me; I want to hear substance and details.
-
Don't we all, but it's good people care enough to have a go.
We can all make up our minds about them in due course.
-
There's one thing to have a go but another to demonstrate they are capable. For a couple of them they have had their time before and failed miserably. Same goes for Casey I might add. At the moment they seem to care more about playing politics than what's best for the Club.
Anyway as you say froars will find out in due course. If Schwab meets Casey next week and askes him to resign with a petition (which one he will have will be interesting?) under his arm as back-up then it will be on :-\.
-
Casey was interviewed by 3aw earlier today in Brisbane. He said Colin Radford was on the plane with him and that Radford was not part of an alternative ticket. Caro replied later on that people she spoke to at the TAC were notified by Radford that he may be running for the board. Well someone is telling fibs ???. Casey also reiterated that he would step down if a person or group demonstrated to him that they would do a better job at the Club. He and Schwab haven't spoken to each other since they parted company.
Apparently also Dick Clay was very unhappy that his name was mentioned as part of a alternative ticket. Caro said she had emphasised in the article that he hadn't joined yet but was going to.
-
Jewell `not part of board challenge'
04 July 2004
Sunday Herald Sun
Scot Palmer
FORMER Richmond premiership coach Tony Jewell has knocked back an offer to join a group threatening to challenge the Tigers' board this year.
Jewell, who was beaten at the last club poll after a long stint as a board member, said he was aware of the challenge being mounted, and believed former vice-president Brendan Schwab was a key figure.
"I have been spoken to by a few people . . . but I am leaving it to somebody else," Jewell said yesterday.
"I won't be involved in any way other than going to the footy as a life member."
Schwab was coy when questioned about his involvement.
"I have not ruled out a return, but have no further comment about it," he said yesterday.
The comments come as president Clinton Casey conceded he would stand down if he believed there was a better group to run the club.
Casey, who said he was prepared to fight on behalf of the club, was asked whether he would resign if told the ticket was being headed by Schwab.
"I would certainly sit down and talk to the board about it," he told 3AW yesterday.
"I mean if we thought if it was in the best interests of the club and they had people there who were going to be able to do a better job than we would, that's what you would do – but otherwise you wouldn't."
Casey denied that the TAC's Colin Radford would be part of the challenge to the board.
He said Radford was on the same flight as him yesterday and denied any involvement in the reform ticket.
Asked if people were being honest with him, Casey told said: "I'm not sure. But I suppose time will be the judge, but they are going to come and have a chat to me next week and I look forward to having a chat.
"I don't know who is heading the ticket and whether or not they think they have got a president involved in that as well."
Jewell said yesterday: "I have heard they have 15 people willing to take part in an election and (are) now wading through the names."
Jewell said he regretted what was happening to Richmond at the moment, saying, "we know how to implode, don't we?".
Despite Casey previously saying the club was after an experienced coach to replace Danny Frawley, he said Essendon assistant coach Mark Harvey and Brisbane assistant Gary O'Donnell would be considered.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,10033139%255E19742,00.html
-
3 ex-board members still makes me wary and although they've finally been named (albeit it took Caro to do it) we still don't know their future plans and policies for the Club. Famous names and backers don't impress me; I want to hear substance and details.
Make that 4 ex-board members MT if Dick Clay is involved.
Dick Clay was on the board back in 1984 and 1985.
Absolutely no surprise that Caro got this "exclusive" ;)
-
Make that 4 ex-board members MT if Dick Clay is involved.
Dick Clay was on the board back in 1984 and 1985.
Thanks WP :). I wish we could get a list of board members since 1980. I know Humphris was treasurer from mid-late 1986 to 1990.
I wonder how much of a say Clay had during that great period of stupidity in the mid 80's.
The 1984 annual report revealed a loss of $224,000 of which $130,000 was legal fees. The poaching wars and the need to recruit high price interstaters to compensate for the inability to find players in zones was causing financial problems for all the Melbourne clubs. The whole period was a time of rampant chequebook recruiting.
Barry Richardson lead a challenge to the board and as part of his victory replaced Patterson with Tasmanian Paul Sproule. The high prices paid for players at this time and the legal battles to gain clearances were crippling clubs. The players Richmond recruited such as Phillip Walsh and John Annear were not successes and the need to continually recruit replacements for poor recruits was draining club resources. A board room deal saw long term treasurer and recruiter Ron Carson deposed. The board turmoils and financial malaise led the VFL to sponsor a suggestion that Richmond should move to Brisbane in 1985. Ian Wilson was deposed by Barry Richardson as president in March 1985. Richmond cleared Brian Taylor and lost Merv Keane and failed to recruit anyone of note. At the end of the season as the club finished 8th Sproule was replaced by Jewell and Patterson resigned the presidency in favour of Bill Durham when he refused his supporters demands to sack Sproule.
Richmond's chief administrator between 1981-86, Kevin Dixon, blamed the poor record on interference by Graeme Richmond who had forced him to recruit players he otherwise wouldn't have. Richmond's recruiting at this time was ridiculous. Its list of purchases included, ..., Phillip Walsh $110,000 (40 games), Daryl Suton $80,000 (6 games), Andrew Cross $20,000 (1 game), Peter McCormack $20,000 (4 games), Gary Frangalas $100,000 (17 games), Michael Roberts $30,000 (12 games), Dennis Collins $80,000 (17 games), John Annear $100,000 (65 games) and Jeff Dunne $20,000 (1 game). The settlement for sacked coach Paul Sproule cost $65,000.
http://oneeyed-richmond.com/history.htm - based from "Tigerand - The History of the RFC 1885-1991" and thanks to Damian Streets.
The monies probably don't sound that much now but 15-20 years ago that was $$$ and it was enough to almost send us to the wall or relocate to Brisbane :o.
Please NO ex-board members from the last 20-25 years >:(.
-
Clay steers clear of Tiger trouble
08 July 2004
Herald Sun
Mark Stevens
RICHMOND legend Dick Clay has called for calm at Punt Rd, strongly denying he is part of a rebel group moving to oust president Clinton Casey.
Clay, a four-time premiership player, yesterday said reports he was spearheading an alternative ticket were completely false.
"I've received no approach at all by anybody. I've got no interest at all," Clay said.
Clay, vice-president of the Tigers' past players' group, said any challenge should be left until after the season. He said rebel member Michael Pahoff's push to force an emergency general meeting and oust Casey on the board was poorly timed.
Clay said the powerful past players' group had informed the current Tigers regime that it would not align itself with any political group.
Michael Perry, head of the past players, met Casey and Tigers' football director Greg Miller on Tuesday and stressed they would not be supporting any alternative ticket.
Perry last night said the past players were "straight down the line" and would not favour anyone in the looming battle.
"We're not aligned anywhere -- we're just in there for the footy club," Perry said.
Clay said the group was careful not to be seen "stirring the pot".
"We'd be foolish to try and upset the apple cart when the Tigers are down where they are."
Clay said he had no personal issues with Casey, who was facing a challenge by a group headed by former board member Brendan Schwab.
He denied he had recently strongly criticised the club in a talk to a Tigers' coterie group.
"There's no way known I'd every say anything detrimental to the club. It was just a call to our supporters to support a proud and passionate club," Clay said.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,10072916%255E19771,00.html
-
Don't remember in my life so many people not wanting to be apart of something.
Will the real alternative group please stand up! ::)
-
Maybe there isn't one.
And if there is one, they're not showing me they're very organised.
-
Well according to Michael his petition is in the hands of an "alternative" group but then again that might be George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln ;D.
If there isn't an alternative ticket then we as a Club are going to be the biggest laughing stock in the League spending $50,000 of our own money, after losing $2 million already, on an election with no candidates :-\.
-
Maybe Micheal is comming back from the states with his mates from the Boston tea party or whats left of them ;D
-
Don't remember in my life so many people not wanting to be apart of something.
Will the real alternative group please stand up! ::)
They cannot stand up because I don't think they know who they are. :-\ :P
Whoever "they" are, they are not presenting a very positive, proactive, professional imagine. ::) >:(
Don't worry about us being a laughing stock over this "situation" - we already are >:( >:( >:(
Let's see there's:
Gettysburg the re-enactment
Who's on my Ticket?
Will you be on my ticket?
You're not on my ticket?
:P :P >:( >:(
;)
-
If there isn't an alternative ticket then we as a Club are going to be the biggest laughing stock in the League spending $50,000 of our own money, after losing $2 million already, on an election with no candidates :-\
Surely members won’t agree to an election unless they know who the candidates are, if there are any. Would we?
On the money side of things, and if I got this right, it costs $50,000 for an election, but how much for an EGM to decide whether we need or want to spend $50,000?
-
Surely members won’t agree to an election unless they know who the candidates are, if there are any. Would we?
No choice TS if Michael Pahoff presents his petition. Has been my gripe with his actions from the beginning.
-
Surely members won’t agree to an election unless they know who the candidates are, if there are any. Would we?
No choice TS if Michael Pahoff presents his petition. Has been my gripe with his actions from the beginning.
I've lost the plot on the whole thing then Fishfinger. :-\ Cheers. I'll go refresh my memory, if I can be bothered wading through it all again. :P
This really is crazy stuff. >:( They need to change that clause in the Club's constitution so that the figure is represented by a percentage of members, rather than a figure. Because, the number of members has increased many times over, since it was written.
I doubt that the majority view can be represented by 100 people signing a petition, when there are over 27,000 members.
How can a man who isn't sure what he is doing be able to speak for our members? I agree with the principle of the clause, but it obviously needs updating, because this is mind numbing.
At least if we knew who these people were, we could be less concerned. Or more concerned, as the case may be. :'(
-
They need to change that clause in the Club's constitution so that the figure is represented by a percentage of members, rather than a figure. Because, the number of members has increased many times over, since it was written.
I doubt that the majority view can be represented by 100 people signing a petition, when there are over 27,000 members.
I agree wholeheartedly with you TS about the fact that a requirement only 0.4% of members is ridiculous but apparently it's now law and part of the Corporate Act to have it set at 100 or 5% (for smaller companies). So much for democracy and majority rule.
-
My understanding of this whole sorry saga is this:
If Pahoff lodges his petition then there must and EGM. All members would have to be notified of the EGM and where it would take place (cost 1).
At the EGM he puts forward his motion of no confidence in the current board. A vote would be taken and if his motion is passed an interim board would be appointed (how this happens I'm not sure) while an election is called and organised with the proper returning officers appointed (eg the Club's Auditors = cost 2). All members are then notified again by mail and sent ballot papers that would then be needed to counted by the said returning officers and the winners announced.
Now if all of the interim board nominate and there are no other nominations then there wont be an election but the returning officers are still required to tell us that were no other nominations and the interim board are elected unopposed.
If his motion is defeated then the current board remains.
Points to remember: an interim board cannot appoint a new coach so while is this is possibly going we could lose any chance of getting a Wallace or Eade or any of the other top coaching prospect.
The time frame is EGM = 21 days after the redcoats deliver it (or should that be the confederates ???) and a further 21 days for an election after the motion is passed - takes us to mid to late September
-
I agree wholeheartedly with you TS about the fact that a requirement only 0.4% of members is ridiculous but apparently it's now law and part of the Corporate Act to have it set at 100 or 5% (for smaller companies). So much for democracy and majority rule.
Thanks for agreeing MT. Doesn’t sound like it’s gonna do us much good though. :(
5% might make sense in the corporate/business world. But I don’t know that it’s all that workable or sensible in such an emotion charged environment as a footy Club, or any sporting body for that matter. As we are finding out.
Hopefully this is just a one off, but who knows.
What if members signing a petition had to pay for the cost of an EGM? Would that change things? ;D
-
I agree wholeheartedly with you TS about the fact that a requirement only 0.4% of members is ridiculous but apparently it's now law and part of the Corporate Act to have it set at 100 or 5% (for smaller companies). So much for democracy and majority rule.
I don't think this exactly correct MT. If my foggy memory of Corporations Law is working the 100 signatures or 5% is for smaller companies or those that do not have a constitution or articles of association (they are called replaceable rules) if you have a constitution like the RFC does then you are governed by that - so if we change it, which we should, then it takes precedent over the Corporate Act.
IMHO it should be 10% of our voting members.
-
My understanding of this whole sorry saga is this:
If Pahoff lodges his petition then there must and EGM. All members would have to be notified of the EGM and where it would take place (cost 1).
At the EGM he puts forward his motion of no confidence in the current board. A vote would be taken and if his motion is passed an interim board would be appointed (how this happens I'm not sure) while an election is called and organised with the proper returning officers appointed (eg the Club's Auditors = cost 2). …
If his motion is defeated then the current board remains.
That was how I thought events would unfold.
Glad you can make sense of it all WP. Thanks for clearing things up for me. ;)
-
I don't think this exactly correct MT. If my foggy memory of Corporations Law is working the 100 signatures or 5% is for smaller companies or those that do not have a constitution or articles of association (they are called replaceable rules) if you have a constitution like the RFC does then you are governed by that - so if we change it, which we should, then it takes precedent over the Corporate Act.
Thanks WP. This is where I got the 100/5% from. I see that (1A) gives you the chance to change the 100 number in any case by my reading. I agree with you it should be at least 10%.
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001
- SECT 249D
Calling of general meeting by directors when requested by members
(1) The directors of a company must call and arrange to hold a general meeting on the request of:
(a) members with at least 5% of the votes that may be cast at the general meeting; or
(b) at least 100 members who are entitled to vote at the general meeting.
(1A) The regulations may prescribe a different number of members for the purposes of the application of paragraph (1)(b) to:
(a) a particular company; or
(b) a particular class of company.
Without limiting this, the regulations may specify the number as a percentage of the total number of members of the company.
(2) The request must:
(a) be in writing; and
(b) state any resolution to be proposed at the meeting; and
(c) be signed by the members making the request; and
(d) be given to the company.
(3) Separate copies of a document setting out the request may be used for signing by members if the wording of the request is identical in each copy.
(4) The percentage of votes that members have is to be worked out as at the midnight before the request is given to the company.
(5) The directors must call the meeting within 21 days after the request is given to the company. The meeting is to be held not later than 2 months after the request is given to the company.
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3448/0/PA004060.htm
-
Casey guard up as Schwab bid builds
13 July 2004
Herald Sun
Trevor Grant
A RICHMOND rebel group is set to launch its much-awaited challenge to president Clinton Casey.
Led by former director Brendan Schwab, the group is expected to approach Casey within the next fortnight to demand his resignation.
"It could be either this week or next, but you can say it's on," one source said yesterday.
Schwab would not comment on the timing of any challenge, but he indicated it was still very much alive.
"Obviously I'm very worried about the on-going viability of the football club," he said.
"I certainly don't rule out having an involvement in the future in any capacity that the people of Richmond want me to have."
It is understood Schwab and Tigers' 1980 premiership wingman Peter Welsh met at the weekend to firm up plans to oust Casey.
While the exact make-up of the reform ticket is still to be finalised, Schwab, 36, a lawyer who is chief executive of the Australian Entertainment Industry Association, is believed to be considering taking on the role of president if his group gains control.
His board is expected to include Welsh, who runs a successful business in sporting apparel and footwear, Mike Humphris, a liquidation expert and former director who played a major role in saving the Tigers from the financial precipice in the early 1990s, and Colin Radford, an executive with the Tigers' sponsor, the TAC.
Former premiership wingman Bryan Wood has also been linked with the group. It is understood the group would also move to enlist the support of board members Gary March and Alan Nicklos.
The revolt at Richmond was brewing well before the team began to show it was headed for another disastrous season. It had its origins in the resignations of Schwab and Welsh early in the year, which were based on their assessment of the club's finances and a dispute over board governance.
The appointment of a new coach to replace Danny Frawley, who will step down at the end of the season, is a key issue. Ideally, the alternative group would want to have some input into the appointment, but the driving force is the club's financial position.
The club expects to lose in the region of $2 million this year, which would take its accumulated losses in the past two years to almost $3 million.
Casey's predecessor Leon Daphne said earlier this year that when he departed the presidency at the end of 1999, the club had "$1 million in the bank".
"It's not about personalities. It's about the alarming deterioration in the club finances," a source said.
If Casey does not step aside when he's approached, the new board would force an extraordinary general meeting and ask the club membership to decide.
Casey has stated firmly a number of times he would be willing to talk to any potential challengers.
But he's given no indication he would stand down. Only last week he declared that it was "business as usual" at Richmond.
The group has spent many weeks mulling over the idea of a challenge.
However, it has been delayed by an extended recruitment and selection process. Many past players and supporters have been approached; others are said to have offered to be part of the push.
It is believed that Schwab and his men decided to make their run only in the past few days.
It's understood the group does not believe the lack of a prominent Richmond figure to head the ticket will affect its chances of taking office if the matter goes to an election.
Schwab, who served on the Tigers board for five years, is the son of the late Alan Schwab, whose rise to senior executive level at the AFL began when he became Richmond secretary in 1968. Brendan's elder brother, Cameron, currently chief executive at Fremantle, was general manager at Richmond from 1988-1994.
Brendan's background is in sports and industrial law. Before joining the AEIA a year ago, he was chief executive of the Australian Professional Footballers Association, representing Australia's elite soccer players.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,10120850%255E19771,00.html
-
Schwab would not comment on the timing of any challenge, but he indicated it was still very much alive.
"Obviously I'm very worried about the on-going viability of the football club," he said.
"I certainly don't rule out having an involvement in the future in any capacity that the people of Richmond want me to have."
Typical political-speak that gives me the proverbial ::). Casey's no better I might add. Say some hand-wavey BS which is neither giving an answer of yes or no. If they're so confident they're the right people to lead Richmond into the future then what are afraid of - their past failures when they were on the RFC board! It's not as though Clinton has much of a leg to stand on or the support of members. Where's the transparency?! >:(. I'll believe it when I see it.
It is believed that Schwab and his men decided to make their run only in the past few days.
That I find very hard to believe given Caro reported the same thing in The Age a couple of weeks back ::).
It's understood the group does not believe the lack of a prominent Richmond figure to head the ticket will affect its chances of taking office if the matter goes to an election.
In terms of pure politics they most likely will romp it in. With Casey in power for 5 years, people will demand change under current circumstances - both on-field and off. The worry in that is what scrutiny will be placed on the alternative ticket to demonstrate that they will be different to past "new" groups over the last 20 years who promised the world but proved to be no different to their predecessors. As I said previously, a ticket consisting of mainly and lead by former board members gives me no faith whatsoever in them being able to do the job required when they only screwed up especially in regards to the footy department when last on the RFC board.
-
Does anyone know where Boy Blunder Pahloff is and what he's up to at the moment - and what he's currently doing to our club?
-
Yeah I understand the sceptism but guys Casey and co havent performed. His results dont justify another tenure (similar to Dud). The best thing Schwab and co could do is state why they left the board.....if they are able to show that their input was being neglected or that Casey's direction and control was one of the wrong path then I have no qualms that the new party will win.
I have already told my father and friends that if they vote for Casey, Im done with sitting with them at the footy. In 5 years, Casey has one of the worst records I have seen......it must speak volumes.
-
Led by former director Brendan Schwab, the group is expected to approach Casey within the next fortnight to demand his resignation.
"It could be either this week or next, but you can say it's on," one source said yesterday.
Schwab would not comment on the timing of any challenge, but he indicated it was still very much alive.
Hmm to challenge you'd need 100 signatures - so they must have a petition. Pahoff says that he's given his petition to an alternative ticket but wont say which one.
Simple questions Brendan - do you have 100 signatures? Do you have Gettysburg Pahoff's petition? If you don't have these things then how do you plan on challenging?
"Obviously I'm very worried about the on-going viability of the football club," he said.
Well at least we finally agree on something Brendan
"I certainly don't rule out having an involvement in the future in any capacity that the people of Richmond want me to have."
Guess what Brendan personally I don't want you. Why? The reasons are pretty simple actually.
Firstly, your track record. You were a member of the current board - actually as the report says you were a board member for five years. You were part of the decision making process during this time. You were on the board that appointed Frawley and then agreed to extending his contract, you were on the board that OK'd Gaspar 5 year deal. You walked away annd gave NO REASON to the people you are answerable to the members- instead we read bits and pieces that have been given to Caroline Wilson. Further, you appear to have proceeded to point fingers and blame the "Casey Board" - the facts are you were part of that board. Take some responsibility because until you do - you have no hope of getting my vote.
Secondly, Brendan's track record in attending board meetings over the years is poor to say the least. 2003 he attended 11 of a possible 12. Prior to that it reads 9, 8, 8. If you are going to this job you have commit the time and effort. 8 meetings out of 12 doesn't show great commitment.
The revolt at Richmond was brewing well before the team began to show it was headed for another disastrous season. It had its origins in the resignations of Schwab and Welsh early in the year, which were based on their assessment of the club's finances and a dispute over board governance.
What the :o :o. When Peter Welsh resigned earlier this year he was quoted in the H/Sun as saying that there was nothing "sinister" he just didn't have the time. Which is it?
And just one further point - anyone challenging better have plenty have time and deep pockets and be able to cover the $$$ Casey has put into the Club because I don't think it is a option, it is a necessity
-
Does anyone know where Boy Blunder Pahloff is and what he's up to at the moment - and what he's currently doing to our club?
I am guessing the Boston Tea Party ;D
-
Yeah I understand the sceptism but guys Casey and co havent performed. His results dont justify another tenure (similar to Dud). The best thing Schwab and co could do is state why they left the board.....if they are able to show that their input was being neglected or that Casey's direction and control was one of the wrong path then I have no qualms that the new party will win.
I have already told my father and friends that if they vote for Casey, Im done with sitting with them at the footy. In 5 years, Casey has one of the worst records I have seen......it must speak volumes.
Firstly welcome to OER om21.
I understand what you are saying and agree the performance of the current board has been average at best and crap at worst. But the facts are that both Schwab & Welsh were members of the Board while Clinton Casey has been president. They are responsible for some of the stupid decisions that have been made because they were party to them. To simply blame Casey and say he is a dictator is a cop out IMO.
I also agree that Schwab needs to tell members why he quit (refer my previous post). He actually should have done earlier rather than letting Caro give us little bits here and there. In a way it seems to me he has conducted his "campaign" through the media rather than directly at the members at that is something I really have a problem with.
However, I don't think any allegiance with Gettysburg Pahoff will help their cause, it is more likely to harm I would think.
-
THanks for the welcome...good to be here.
Im not denying their role in part of the decision making. For one, we dont know how much of a say they had in some of the decisions you mentioend in your previous post (ie Gas contract, Dud extension). The reason why Casey will receive most of the blame is because he is the head. Comparing to the football department, Dud must take responsibility for his team (Crocker, Brittain, Spargs). Their messages may be busted but its his responsibility.
I beleive once he/they come out and state why they left and their aims that a lot of the murkiness will get cleared up (over his departure and other issues that remain grey). I dont know why the wait but I will say that if he is finalising his crew then thats a good thing. I would hate for a new ticket to emerge and not be 100% ready and finalised. Unfortunately we keep getting smacked on-field, our patience is wearing thin and we want it to happen now.....
I dont see how aligning with Pahoff will harm their cause. I agree with the guy, all he did was cock the gun....he just put Casey on notice saying that basically your job hasnt been good enough. Too many people are mis-reading what he has done and is trying to do.
-
And the phoney war continues ::)
----------------------------------------------
Board pair stand behind Casey
14 July 2004 Herald Sun
Mark Stevens
TWO key Richmond board members have thrown their total support behind president Clinton Casey, killing off speculation they could cross to the enemy camp.
Gary March and Alan Nicklos, mooted as possibilities to join rebel Brendan Schwab's alternative ticket, have called for stability at Punt Rd.
March, about to leave for Athens in his role as head of merchandise company Concept Sports, questioned whether Schwab would have the time to match Casey's commitment to the Tigers.
"I certainly have no intention of joining a rival ticket . . . I don't think the rival ticket is doing the club any good at this point in time," March said last night.
"I just think the whole thing is destabilising.
"Love Clinton or hate him, at least he's prepared to put in the time and effort at the moment -- and I do think he's got Richmond's best interests at heart.
"Maybe it's time everyone gets behind the current regime."
March said he had not spoken to Schwab, a former board member believed to be plotting to oust Casey, for six weeks.
He described former board member Schwab as a "great Richmond person" but said he would face an enormous challenge if he won the presidency.
"He barely had time to be on the board," March said.
"Being president takes an inordinate amount of time.
"People ask me why I don't stand as a potential challenger but I just couldn't put the time into the football club that Clinton does.
"If you're going to take it on, you need to be 100 per cent committed.
"I'm not sure if Brendan would be able to devote the time."
Nicklos, managing director of Motorola's mobile phone business, said no one from any alternative ticket had spoken to him.
"I think it's just rumour-mongering," Nicklos said.
"Clinton is putting the time and effort in to try and rebuild the club.
"If there is something going on, as Clinton said the other day, 'bring it on'."
March said he would step aside only if a new group could show it had the time, effort and financial resources necessary to make a significant difference.
Schwab's group is expected to front Casey within a fortnight and demand his resignation.
"I'm very worried about the on-going viability of the football club," Schwab said this week.
The 36-year-old, a lawyer and chief executive of the Australian Entertainment Industry Association, is believed to be strongly considering taking on the presidency if the group wins control.
Other names connected to the ticket include former players Peter Welsh and Bryan Wood, liquidation expert Michael Humphris and TAC executive Colin Radford.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,10131319%255E19771,00.html
-
He described former board member Schwab as a "great Richmond person" but said he would face an enormous challenge if he won the presidency.
"He barely had time to be on the board," March said.
"Being president takes an inordinate amount of time.
"If you're going to take it on, you need to be 100 per cent committed.
"I'm not sure if Brendan would be able to devote the time."
And from yours truly yesterday......
Secondly, Brendan's track record in attending board meetings over the years is poor to say the least. 2003 he attended 11 of a possible 12. Prior to that it reads 9, 8, 8. If you are going to this job you have commit the time and effort. 8 meetings out of 12 doesn't show great commitment.
::) ::) ::) :-\ :-\ :-\
Exactly my point - thank you ;D
-
I dont see how aligning with Pahoff will harm their cause. I agree with the guy, all he did was cock the gun....
Welcome om21.
No group could not align themselves with Michael Pahoff because, as he has made clear from the beginning, he is not and will not be part of any alternative.
What would make sense is for the group to communicate with Michael to ensure he doesn't present his petition at a time that will leave them not properly prepared to challenge. I'd say this has happened because it seems the possible new ticket wants to present their own petition. They could act on the back of Michael's petition, but to do so with their own petition would give them more credibility in my eyes.
Michael Pahoff has done a good job. I agree all he has done is cocked the gun. Now he should step aside for someone who is prepared to clean up after they fire their own gun.
-
Schwab's group is expected to front Casey within a fortnight and demand his resignation.
"I'm very worried about the on-going viability of the football club," Schwab said this week.
The 36-year-old, a lawyer and chief executive of the Australian Entertainment Industry Association, is believed to be strongly considering taking on the presidency if the group wins control.
Other names connected to the ticket include former players Peter Welsh and Bryan Wood, liquidation expert Michael Humphris and TAC executive Colin Radford.
Not a whole lot about how all of this is panning out gives you confidence that this new ticket could effectively change anything. If they think Casey is so unsuitable for the role then why are they taking so long to get things moving? Surely if things were that bad and these were the right people to take us forward, there would be greater urgency in the whole process. So I can’t help but see this as another case of ego getting in the way of common sense and logic.
What hasn’t been answered in any of this are the reasons why there needs to be a new ticket to bring about change. It hasn’t worked before and you have to doubt that it will work this time. If we want to change things then we aren’t going to do it by causing more divisions than there are already.
Casey has repeatedly said that he would step aside if someone suitable presented themselves. How this person would demonstrate their suitability is anyone’s guess, because even the best made plans can come to nothing, without people with the ability to carry out those plans. As no doubt Casey has found out.
Since the revelation of the budgeted loss for the year, there has been a negative spin on most things the Club has done, which is understandable. But how do you know who and what to believe and who and what not to believe? I guess it’s just a matter of choice.
Terry Wallace raised an interesting point on 3AW the other weekend and queried whether it was better to have a President to take the Club forward who has made mistakes and (hopefully) learned from them along the way, or whether it is best to bring in someone new, who still needs to go through the learning curve? So, it seems that, unless you have a candidate who has previous proven experience, there are no certainties with anyone at the helm.
And unless those on the Board now are of questionable character, have no business sense whatsoever and are just going to sink our Club further into the mire because of it, what could make us think that the new ticket will do better, when it seems that some of those on it have previously been at the Club through similar unsuccessful times.
The current administration has been a lot less conservative than previous ones and a combination of factors; one being a lack of understanding of the nature of the football industry, have seen things go sour. From what has been said, the Club went ahead with additional spending in the football department when it was recommended it shouldn’t.
Whether it was a case of a really high risk to take, an error of judgement, or just negligence, who knows, but we all know that if the footy department isn’t looked after then we can’t hope to be competitive.
To go ahead in business, there is a need to take risks; otherwise things are likely to stagnate. As happened with the previous administration, which seemed to be waiting for success to be achieved through the efforts made on the field. That approach may work to some degree, but what if the team isn’t successful, which is what happened and so it became obvious that there was a need for change.
I certainly don’t want anyone shady running the footy Club, or anyone who puts his/her own interests before that of RFC. Whether our losses are because of any of that isn’t clear. I tend to think it’s more a case of inexperience and a “go for it” type attitude. Maybe that’s wrong, but no one has come out and explained the resentment towards Casey. Clubs have made losses in the past and will continue to do so. So do you stop someone from attempting to change things or help him to correct what he is doing wrong? Casey seems to have the “go for it” attitude, but probably needs people around him to balance this, because the conservative approach didn’t work and now this approach isn’t working either. Probably somewhere in between would be the way to go.
But no one would see that. Least of all those forming the new ticket. If this is the dire situation that this sort of action says it is, why is it taking so long to do anything about it? You would like to think that if things were that bad that action would already have taken place. And the people we need to get things done wouldn’t be waiting around for the “right time”.
Doesn’t seem to me like these are men of action, but just talk. And it is this sort of ‘conservative’ approach that got us into this situation in the first place.
No doubt the ticket is being formed through concern, but to what degree is it concern and how much of it is ego? Because if that’s all this is then nothing will change long-term, if these people don’t have the ability to make the necessary changes that will make a difference. It will take some convincing that the people named on the ticket actually know how to go about doing that. But, the feeling is that they are just wasting everyone’s time and, potentially, the Club’s money.
-
No group could not align themselves with Michael Pahoff because, as he has made clear from the beginning, he is not and will not be part of any alternative.
Bt he aligned himself to someone FF because he has given his petition to an alternative ticket. That's what has been reported in the papers and has not been disputed by Michael.
Michael Pahoff has done a good job.
Sorry FF but I cannot agree with you here. IMO he hasn't done a good job and here's a few reasons why:
1. When he first raised this petition idea he was on 3AW and said that he was organising a petition to pass a no confidence motion in the current board. When asked by 3AW if was going to put his hand up as an alternative he said "NO but I am sure there are people who will". Sorry this is not good - this is trouble making because unless you have a clear plan and alternative then you run the risk of putting the Club in greater trouble than it is already in. >:(
2. He then says that he has had plenty of contact with alternative tickets and will hand over the completed petition to them but wont tell us who they are. Why the secrecy? He complains on one hand about Casey and the board not being transperant and then does exactly the same thing >:(
3. Then we are subjected to reading about his comparison between the situation at the RFC to the Battle of Gettysburg while he was on holidays. In a word - embarrassing.
My biggest beef has been all along that he has no clear direction or plan - he has "flipped flopped" all over the place. He gave us no alternative but expected everyone to sign his petition.
I really question whether he truly understands the damage he has done - we have been in limbo for weeks now and I partially blame Mr Pahoff for that
-
Sorry FF but I cannot agree with you here. IMO he hasn't done a good job and here's a few reasons why:
1. When he first raised this petition idea he was on 3AW and said that he was organising a petition to pass a no confidence motion in the current board. When asked by 3AW if was going to put his hand up as an alternative he said "NO but I am sure there are people who will". Sorry this is not good - this is trouble making because unless you have a clear plan and alternative then you run the risk of putting the Club in greater trouble than it is already in. >:(
2. He then says that he has had plenty of contact with alternative tickets and will hand over the completed petition to them but wont tell us who they are. Why the secrecy? He complains on one hand about Casey and the board not being transperant and then does exactly the same thing >:(
3. Then we are subjected to reading about his comparison between the situation at the RFC to the Battle of Gettysburg while he was on holidays. In a word - embarrassing.
What I meant was he has done a good job of getting off his bum and stirring things up that he felt strongly should change.
I have made my views against what Michael has done well known totally for your reason no. 1. If he butts out now I don't think he will have done damage. (yet)
Reason 2 doesn't bother me because I'm naive enough to take him at his word that he will not be involved. My reading of it is that he has made his petition available to any group at all so an EGM can be called if he sees they will challenge Casey , rather than having aligned with them.
Reason 3 I found odd. Embarassing is pretty good, puzzling would fit my thoughts when he referred to all the battlefields. Didn't particularly bother me, but did make me happy that he wasn't going to put himself up as an alternative.
-
Damned if you do...damned if you dont.
If they come out unprepared they will get hammered;
If they sit behind the closed scenes and prepare themselves to be ready for anything they get hammered.....
-
Damned if you do...damned if you dont.
If they come out unprepared they will get hammered;
If they sit behind the closed scenes and prepare themselves to be ready for anything they get hammered.....
Fair call om21.
But they seem to come out and say very little which makes them seem very unprepared. And it seems they haven't actually stayed behind closed doors - we have been hearing rumours and rumblings from them for weeks now. :-\
Brendan said this the other day in the H/Sun...
"Obviously I'm very worried about the on-going viability of the football club," he said.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,10120850%255E19771,00.html
But gave no indicatin what he plans to do about it - that just seems unprepared. Perhaps he should not speak to the media until he can give us his plan and processes that he believes will fix the Club.
Also, I think one of the problems this alternative ticket faces is the fact that 2 of them were part of the Casey adminsitration (not that they seem keen on acknowledging that fact).
-
Reason 3 I found odd. Embarassing is pretty good, puzzling would fit my thoughts when he referred to all the battlefields. Didn't particularly bother me, but did make me happy that he wasn't going to put himself up as an alternative.
Agree about him not being an alternative ticket - what a relief.
I put reason 3 in there because he said at the very beginning when I heard him on 3AW that he was "representing the majority of RFC members. Forgetting this is a stupid statement because he is not and has never been representing me - his ramblings about the battlefields indirectly paints the RFC membership in a less than positive light and I find it not only embarrassing but offensive. You know the old saying about one bad apple........... :-\ :-\
-
I hear what you're saying om21, but I don't see it as a bad thing.
If they come out unprepared they deserve to be hammered.
Any hammering they are getting for sitting behind the closed scenes is because information about them has been released which has turned out to be incorrect or has been denied.
I want them to stay behind the scenes until they are totally ready. That's why I think Michael Pahoff has done all he should.
I believe an alternative ticket will most likely be our next board, so I want them to be better than what we have. Until they emerge and are deemed worthy challengers I think it's fair to be circumspect about them and to question touted actions with regard to an EGM.
-
Just wish they'd sort this stuff out quick, so we know what we're up against, can plan for the future and get on with 2005.
Totally sick of it!
-
I understand what you are all saying and thats the problem with this all. I dont think the timing is wrong persay, its just that right now we are frustrated and impatience. We want changes and we want them now (at some level).
And your right WP, two members from Casey's crew doesnt look good but there must be reasons for this and I think we all want to know before we vote. I think thats the only thing holding this back from being a white-wash in favour of the newbies....the past ties.
-
I understand what you are all saying and thats the problem with this all. I dont think the timing is wrong persay, its just that right now we are frustrated and impatience. We want changes and we want them now (at some level).
We are all impatient to some degree om21. But Schwab wrote a letter to the Club Directors back late last year, I think it was, outlining his concerns. Seven months, or more, later and still nothing has happened.
From my point of view, people of action, who know what they are doing, don’t take that long to get things rolling, especially if things are that bad.
So, the longer this takes, the less inclined I am to think that these people could effectively change anything. They would need to have a high powered ticket to convince people they could.
-
Tigers, Hawks bosses let the drift continue
Caroline Wilson
realfooty.theage.com.au
July 18, 2004
Richmond, like Hawthorn, is desperately searching for leaders. President Clinton Casey is no certainty to survive into 2005, although the signs for Casey now are better than they were at the end of last month.
Coach Danny Frawley is in caretaker mode until the end of the season and Frawley's successor should be named soon, although he presumably would like some assurances regarding the club's future, however desperate he is for the job.
Perplexingly, the club remains without a working chief executive despite the fact that the appointment of former Melbourne Grand Prix boss Steve Wright is close to one month old. The Tigers remain in crisis financially and facing key administrative and football decisions and yet Wright remains in Europe and his arrival at Tigerland is still weeks away. Wright should have started by now and not only for symbolic reasons.
But there has been one significant leadership decision taken this week and that was when Richmond announced that 26-year-old midfielder Kane Johnson would captain the club against St Kilda. The former Crow, in his second year at his new club, is now a roaring favourite to replace Wayne Campbell next season.
Campbell has accepted his time is over with one year remaining on his contract and, it would seem, no more than that left in his overworked body. Darren Gaspar appears not to have entered the club's captaincy calculations and the Tigers have been careful not to confuse Mark Coughlan's promise as a player with the youngster's leadership ability - certainly not yet.
It is pointless dwelling on how few genuine successors stand behind Campbell, just as there is little more to be said regarding the vacuum at Hawthorn, which lately has come to resemble less of a football club than a group of individuals trying to justify their positions.
The damage has been done and mending the situation could take years. Carlton recognised as much when it appointed the initially unwilling Anthony Koutoufides as captain and built around him an unlikely leadership group, each one chosen with a view to unearthing something. The Blues cut their losses and chose to give Nick Stevens at least a season or two to settle.
It should be pointed out, too, that not all great teams have clear captains. Hawthorn had at least half-a-dozen during the 1980s and early '90s, as did the Tigers a decade or so earlier. Grant Thomas is trying to reshape St Kilda into a similar model.
But Richmond fans who have done their homework will look a little wistfully to Skilled Stadium today and the visiting captain from Sydney, Stuart Maxfield.
In fairness, the Richmond administrators who let Maxfield go at the end of 1995 were desperately sorry to lose him and gained Gaspar in return, but few could have predicted that the 32-year-old Maxfield would become one of the most respected, if low-profile, captains in the AFL. It is possible to imagine Kane Johnson travelling a similar path.
Brendan Schwab, whose recruiting mission is not quite complete, faces a tougher obstacle. His ticket boasts some impressive names but, on paper, no world-beaters and the alternative choice as Tigers president can expect no favours from the AFL, whose administration is subtly siding with stability.
That Schwab is still talking to potential directors and has not yet paid Casey a visit demonstrates that he recognises this, although his supporters still believe he will do so. Casey has no shortage of detractors, but few seem willing to line up against him and rock the boat at a time when the club is on the verge of seeking a new, but more experienced senior coach.
There are subtle signs that his board will undergo further pruning and some additions in the lead-up to next February's club election; and that the current administration is fighting back and looking to lure some more former Tigers back to the club as directors or assistant coaches.
When the situation became desperate against Carlton in the 1982 grand final, it was Jim Jess who stood up for his club. Could it have been more than a coincidence that Jess, who remains embroiled in the game, was at Telstra Dome yesterday as a guest of Richmond?
http://realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/07/17/1089694608616.html