I hear what you are saying. I'm very suspicious the only reason we got a question & answer session from Gary was because a thread like this was started.
If you thought March organised a Q&A session on local media because threads like this started on fan forums then you are seriously out of touch with the reality.
I'm just think some take pleasure in trying to shoot down the one person that wants to at least open the lines of debate.
Only one poster (Carvels Ring) jumped on his case from the start as I read it. Go back over the posts and point out to me one that didn't give Phil Anderson the benefit of doubt by asking questions of him first. It was his responses that most didn't like and luckily for us, that's just how it is in a democracy.
Sounds like to me he is a listener. I quite like the thought of somebody on our board who wants to listen.
The more of his posts I read, the more he sounded like a whinger to me, not a listener. He didn't listen to one question that was being asked of him, just whinged and bleated about past mistakes.
Look at times I'm sure we all will let our passion get the better of us. But I want the answers from the current board first. How long have some of them been there? I know next to nothing about them. Where are their answers to the questions? At least this bloke gets Gary to the table to hear his answers.
He has done nothing of the sort. The club has been very pro-active in recent times from most members of the executive, directly addressing the need to keep our members and supporters more informed and engaged with the club. Gale, Cameron, Jackson have all had a crack and now March. That's small steps forward in reality but giant steps forward in attitude. Phil Anderson and his forum posts have not made one scrap of difference to this shift in attitude by the club that began very soon after Gale was appointed.
I loved that Q&A session, made my week. However, according to Gary in his Q&A he prefers a policy of gagging our board on social media and forums. Sorry, but to me thats a backward way of thinking. He wants to gag them from the very people, the Tiger faithful that they are meant to represent via our votes. That does not sound like a way to think in 2010. 
Did you like the other Q&A sessions I also mentioned? And as for March "preferring a policy of gagging our board on social and media forums"? Get your facts right before you dribble crap. Here is what was posted:
As part of the election process the board decided not to endorse any candidates and let the members decide. Board and Richmond Football Club policy does not allow board members or staff to post on forums for governance and confidentiality reasons however this year, RFC_Official came on board to keep our members continually informed of what was happening at the club.The board decided not to endorse any candidates. Means that the new guys get a fair crack, a level playing field. How much fairer can you get than that?
The RFC policy does not allow board members or staff to post on forums for governance and confidentially reasons. How on earth is that March "preferring a policy of gagging our board on social and media forums"? How many times have we gone off our nuts in here for supposed 'leaks' in the club - and yet you lambast March for stating the policy of the club in NOT allowing board members to chat on social media?
RFC_Official came on board to keep our members continually informed of what was happening at the club. More communication by the club and not driven or influenced by Phil Anderson in any way shape or form.
You demand questions of the board and complain about knowing next to nothing about them, all the while sticking up for someone who has provided no more answers or information to you, more has just used the social media format to give voice to his gripe. If you want to find out about any of the current board members then have a look on the club website, they all have a short bio outlining their history with the board and also their commercial connections. If you want to find out more on them then it's just not hard to find out a lot more on any of them by using Google, after all, there is a fair bit about each of them in the public domain. Phil Anderson and Neil McKay have a walk up start in getting their message out to the public because they are not restricted by any club policy but you seem to think this reflects badly on the 3 incumbents! Give them a call, send them an email if you can't decide because you don't have enough information. At least you will know who is fair dinkum if any respond.
As I see it, if you don't have a plan or an intent to fix the problem then shut up complaining about it in the first place. And I haven't seen one plan or act of intent from either new candidate. And I happen to think that the board is getting it's act together - slowly and not without a few bumps - but the direction is right, the plan is sound, and the action is solid. Pretty simple choice really.
