Boardroom tickets finalised - Miller to run on Casey's ticket

[Tiger Spirit]

Sorry TS, this post confirms that you are a Casey supporter more than you are a RFC supporter.

Maybe if you actually knew me you could think even less of me.

The guy's been there for 5 years. He JUST figured out there are problems? Any RFC supporter, could tell him from Day 1 of year 1 there were problems. Does the man not listen to his members? Does he not read the papers which love to tell the footy public what a shocker we are. You've been posting here we've been crap for 20 not 5 years. Well he'd know that if he wasnt busy following the bombers for the past 20 years.

If everyone has known that, why didn’t any other Board do anything about the problems?  It seems it’s obvious to everyone that there are problems, just no one’s been able or prepared to do anything about them, until now.  I’m just grateful that someone, anyone, has finally woken up and done something about it.  I couldn’t care less if it was Eddie McGuire or the man on the moon, coz I care about Richmond, believe it or not, rather than who someone once supported.  You’re not Peter Welsh are you?

You cannot argue a plan put haphazardly together in the past 3 months and for the purpose of winning an election as something that overrides 5 years of incompetence, failure, financial losses, and like Daphne, failed coaching decisions.

How can you say it’s haphazardly put together when it’s been endorsed by the AFL.

He lacks honor. He lacks a genuine love for the RFC. His ego is all that matters to him in all this.

I said the same thing about the Alt. group right from the start, 1980.  Who’s right?

Leon Daphne failed in the end, but he also took the club forward financially. Clinton Casey will be known for winning an election, but taking the club backwards

If he’s not re-elected then he won’t have the opportunity to prove anyone wrong. Not that you’ll agree, but some would argue that the ground work already done is the start of better times ahead and whoever gets in will benefit from that work.

[1980]

TS, I have a hard time bagging you. Cos you seem like a good guy   

But anyway, the AFL endorsed Ian Campbell as our CEO. Endorsing the business plan drafted by their consultants doesnt fill me with enthusiasm.

We're chasing rainbows again. We are told the same crap every year by Casey, and we've gone from bad to worse. Pull out all his statements pre season. And then look we're we are. Every year its the same drivel.

By the by, Peter Welsh is a RFC premiership player. Which is a much greater contribution than anything Clinton Casey has done for the club. I bet he wasnt even there in 1980. Probably booing us in a pub near Windy Hill.

[mightytiges]

What I believe is that Neville Crowe was a good man that did his best by the club. When the club was at its lowest point, he did what he could to ensure we survived. We were a horror to watch, but at least the club survived. Crowe then moved on with honor when the time was right after 5 years in charge.

Leon Daphne strengthened the club's finances and increased memberships. He made some mistakes regarding coaching appointments, and he then also did the honoroubale thing after 5 years in charge. Passed the baton on.

Both men put the club ahead of themselves

Agree about Neville Crowe 1980. Apart from handling the end of KB's coaching days poorly, he presided over S.O.S. and the Club's survival. I thought after 6 years (late 87-93) in the job he just decided to stepped down. I don't remember a challenge against him.

Daphne fell on his own sword because he tied his presidency to Geischen when their were loud calls for Geischen's sacking and rumours of a senior players revolting against Geisch. The board at that time had the chance to restructure the Club after the round 22 debacle against the Dees in 98 but instead sat on their hands.

Btw both were president for longer than 5 years  . Daphne lead from late 93 to 99.

[mightytiges]

From The Age:

Meanwhile, Richmond president Clinton Casey said he had not ruled out taking legal action against Charles Macek's opposition ticket over allegedly defamatory material produced to support their campaign, but said the matter could be resolved if an apology was forthcoming.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/12/07/1102182291432.html

[mightytiges]

Miller caught in middle
The Australian
December 08, 2004

GREG Miller's decision to align himself with Richmond president Clinton Casey has put him in an impossible position, rebel group spokesman Charles Macek said last night.

The rebel group wants Miller to withdraw his nomination for the board, but Miller has no intention of doing so.

"As I said last week when he nominated, putting himself in an impossible conflict, it's disappointing that he has chosen to throw his support behind one man," Macek said.

"We think the best way he can serve the football club is in the football department, with (coach) Terry Wallace and the young players he's brought there.

"And he's not going to be able to do that and sit on the board; it's just absolutely untenable."

Macek said it was Miller's decision not to work with his rebel group if they won power at the December 22 elections.

"You need to ask him why he wouldn't work with us," Macek said.

"He has made that decision when we have made it absolutely clear that we would like him there in the football department, where we think he's got a lot to offer."

Macek said his group had written to Miller personally to put its side of the issue.

"In one of his comments that I heard last week, he said he hadn't heard from us and he didn't think he'd have a job if he got in," Macek said.

"So we needed to get that message to him."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11624507%255E23211,00.html

[mightytiges]

"As I said last week when he nominated, putting himself in an impossible conflict, it's disappointing that he has chosen to throw his support behind one man," Macek said.

"We think the best way he can serve the football club is in the football department, with (coach) Terry Wallace and the young players he's brought there.

"And he's not going to be able to do that and sit on the board; it's just absolutely untenable."

Strange as Macek mustn't seem to think there's a untenable conflict problem for the CEO and other executive directors who are on the Wesfarmers board . 

http://www1.wesfarmers.com.au/investor_relations/annrep2003/ff/ff_2.html

Miller's throwing his support behind the Club, Wright, Wallace and subsequently incumbant board after the positive changes made the past 3-4 months plus the past 2 drafts. If the roles were reversed and Macek was president the past 5 years and Casey was challenging then he would support Macek. It's fairly simple to understand  .

"You need to ask him why he wouldn't work with us," Macek said.

Geez the alternative threaten ultimatums towards Miller (such as forcing an EGM while we're negotiating with Wallace, forcing Miller to resign if he is fairly elected and demanding Miller to withdraw) yet still expect him to work with them. Ummm...don't think so 

Not surprisingly the alternative attacks now centre on Miller and not Casey nor the other 7 Casey ticket members.  If there's some truth in that BF rumour about one or two low profile alternative people having second thoughts about the way the alternative is acting then I wouldn't be surprised. Stop playing the man! 

[mightytiges]

Miller has sent an email to Rhett Bartlett outlining his reasoning for running on the Casey ticket and responds to criticism. He obviously doesn't have any time for Brendan Schwab.
 
http://www.rhettrospective.com/rhett_weekly_update.htm

[Tiger Spirit]

TS, I have a hard time bagging you. Cos you seem like a good guy

  Same here 1980.  Not out to intentionally bag anyone, just here to discuss RFC.

But anyway, the AFL endorsed Ian Campbell as our CEO. Endorsing the business plan drafted by their consultants doesnt fill me with enthusiasm.

We're chasing rainbows again. We are told the same crap every year by Casey, and we've gone from bad to worse. Pull out all his statements pre season. And then look we're we are. Every year its the same drivel.

I see your point and understand your frustration 1980, but we’ve been chasing rainbows and listening to the same promises for almost as long as I can remember and not just the last 5 years.  And seeing as it’s come down to choosing between the current Board and the Alt. ticket, there has to be some reason behind choosing one over the other (or a combination of the two, and/or independents).

For me, despite past mistakes and faults of the current Board (some of whom haven’t been there more than a few months), they seem more likely to change things than the Alternative, which doesn’t seem like much of an alternative, whichever way I look at it.

But, whatever our views and whatever happens, I’m sure we’ll all do what we think is in the best interests of RFC.

By the by, Peter Welsh is a RFC premiership player. Which is a much greater contribution than anything Clinton Casey has done for the club. I bet he wasnt even there in 1980. Probably booing us in a pub near Windy Hill.

Whatever the situation was, at least he eventually saw the light.

[Tiger Spirit]

"As I said last week when he nominated, putting himself in an impossible conflict, it's disappointing that he has chosen to throw his support behind one man," Macek said.

But not disappointing when they aim their election campaign at one man.

"You need to ask him why he wouldn't work with us," Macek said.

Would they like us to draw them a picture perhaps?

So, what’s the ultimatum?  Miller withdraws his nomination or else what?  Where’s the punch line?

[WilliamPowell]

Strange as Macek mustn't seem to think there's a untenable conflict problem for the CEO and other executive directors who are on the Wesfarmers board . 

http://www1.wesfarmers.com.au/investor_relations/annrep2003/ff/ff_2.html

and your point is you're not comparing fairly.

Just move the goal post a little more to the right please  .

In the immortal words of my 7 year old niece (it's her birthday today) - GOT YA 

[1980]

What I believe is that Neville Crowe was a good man that did his best by the club. When the club was at its lowest point, he did what he could to ensure we survived. We were a horror to watch, but at least the club survived. Crowe then moved on with honor when the time was right after 5 years in charge.

Leon Daphne strengthened the club's finances and increased memberships. He made some mistakes regarding coaching appointments, and he then also did the honoroubale thing after 5 years in charge. Passed the baton on.

Both men put the club ahead of themselves

Agree about Neville Crowe 1980. Apart from handling the end of KB's coaching days poorly, he presided over S.O.S. and the Club's survival. I thought after 6 years (late 87-93) in the job he just decided to stepped down. I don't remember a challenge against him.

Daphne fell on his own sword because he tied his presidency to Geischen when their were loud calls for Geischen's sacking and rumours of a senior players revolting against Geisch. The board at that time had the chance to restructure the Club after the round 22 debacle against the Dees in 98 but instead sat on their hands.

Btw both were president for longer than 5 years  . Daphne lead from late 93 to 99.

The key point is that both ex presidents moved on without blood letting, acknowledged they'd made mistakes on the footy side of things, and passed the baton on to someone else. You think we have a reputation for eating our own just because we sack coaches?

He should have followed the good example set by the 2 previous presidents. Moved on and let someone else have a go after he's had 5 years to get it right, and hasnt done so.

[1980]

"As I said last week when he nominated, putting himself in an impossible conflict, it's disappointing that he has chosen to throw his support behind one man," Macek said.

"We think the best way he can serve the football club is in the football department, with (coach) Terry Wallace and the young players he's brought there.

"And he's not going to be able to do that and sit on the board; it's just absolutely untenable."

Strange as Macek mustn't seem to think there's a untenable conflict problem for the CEO and other executive directors who are on the Wesfarmers board . 

http://www1.wesfarmers.com.au/investor_relations/annrep2003/ff/ff_2.html

There wouldnt be a problem if Steven Wright as CEO ran for the board. But the footy dept GM that reports to the CEO is a problem.

However, Wright wont win Casey as many votes as Miller right?

So they're creating a structural mess just to win the election. And you agree with this.

I dont know any blue chip companies that have one of their managers on the board but not the CEO. Certainly not Wesfarmers, nor Telstra.

If you want to argue Wright should be on the board instead of Miller, I'd vote for Wright. And I'd ask you. Why isnt he on the ticket? Do they not have faith in him as CEO? Is he another Casey puppet?

[mightytiges]

The key point is that both ex presidents moved on without blood letting, acknowledged they'd made mistakes on the footy side of things, and passed the baton on to someone else. You think we have a reputation for eating our own just because we sack coaches?

He should have followed the good example set by the 2 previous presidents. Moved on and let someone else have a go after he's had 5 years to get it right, and hasnt done so.

If the president steps down without challenge as Neville Crowe did then that's something the Club should be proud of. However avoiding a public blood letting just to save face as we did at the end of 99 doesn't fix the tensions and problems behind the scenes. IMO it only encourages a culture of faceless factions and challengers waiting in baited breathe for the next incumbant to underperform and then sweep in and seize power with ease and without scrutiny. We end up going around in circles repeatedly "eating our own".

The "handover" also doesn't give us the members a say as we are taken out of the equation. Remember Casey only came into contention for the job at the very end. We just turn up at the AGM and get told this is your new board. Regular elections hold both the incumbant and challengers to account for what they've done and promise to do for the future. IMO Daphne at that time should have been allowed to face a poll.

Anyway this is assuming Casey is going to be elected. His ticket may very well get elected without him. The members (the vast majority who don't visit internet forums) will decide his fate. 

[mightytiges]

There wouldnt be a problem if Steven Wright as CEO ran for the board. But the footy dept GM that reports to the CEO is a problem.

However, Wright wont win Casey as many votes as Miller right?

So they're creating a structural mess just to win the election. And you agree with this.

I don't see the difference. The board monitors the performance of all parts of the club including that of the CEO. If the CEO is on the board then there's a potential conflict of interest as he or she can have a say in the judgement of his or her own performance. With any executive director it's up to he or she and the rest of the board to recognize conflicts of interest and that he or she then steps aside from any discussions or final decisions in regard to issues where a conflict of interest exists. Sure to avoid any potential of a conflict of interest you wouldn't have any executive directors but it's not uncommon and my point was I found it strange that Macek had a problem with the RFC board having an executive director but not other company boards he is actually a member of.

A poster on tiger talk has listed the number of executive directors for the ASX 20 (top 20 Australian companies). Virtually all of them have one and not just the CEO.

AWC Alumina Limited = 1 (of 5)
AMC Amcor Limited = (too difficult to work out because of current
upheaval and crappy website)
AMP AMP Limited = 1 (of 7)
ANZ Australia And New Zealand Banking Group = 1 (of 9)
BHP BHP Billiton Limited = 3 (of 11)
CML Coles Myer Limited = 1 (of 10)
CBA Commonwealth Bank Of Australia = 1 (of 10)
FGL Foster's Group Limited = 1 (of 7)
NAB National Australia Bank Limited = 3 (of 13)
NWSLV News Corporation Inc (NonVoting CDI)= 6/7 (of 14)
NWS News Corporation Inc (Voting CDI) = assumed as above
QBE Qbe Insurance Group Limited = 1 (of
RIO Rio Tinto Limited Australia = 3 (of 13)
SGB St George Bank Limited = 1 (of 9)
TLS Telstra Corporation Limited = 1 (of 9?)
WES Wesfarmers = 4 (of 13)
WDC Westfield Group = 4 (of 13)
WBC Westpac Banking Corporation = 1 (of 9)
WPL Woodside Petroleum Limited = 1 (of 10)
WOW Woolworths Limited = 1 (of 7)

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/tiger-talk/message/62525

I've said earlier before Miller said he was running for a board position that I would have preferred Miller didn't run for the board but I understand why he's doing it and accept his reasons and it doesn't change my vote as I won't be voting for the alternative.

If you want to argue Wright should be on the board instead of Miller, I'd vote for Wright. And I'd ask you. Why isnt he on the ticket? Do they not have faith in him as CEO? Is he another Casey puppet?

I would say Miller adds a football person to the board whereas the financial side is covered already by guys like Dalton and O'Shannassy. That's why they went after Rex.

[WilliamPowell]

Dont know any blue chip companies that have one of their managers on the board but not the CEO. Certainly not Wesfarmers, nor Telstra.

1980 if you have a look at the link MT supplied to Wesfarmers you will clearly see that the Managing Director & CEO of Wesfarmers (that makes him a paid empolyee of the company) is also on the Wesfarmers board. Macek has stated that Miller on the board would be untenable - what's his view on this? You cannot take the moral high ground like he has regarding Miller and then not have a problem with on a board that he sits on. Which is it? Tenable or untenable? It would seem a contridiction - doesn't it ???