Richmond Board Nomination

[Smokey]

Right about now your chances of getting a vote from me is about the same as if some of the idiots that post on these forums would have if they ran for the board.

So much for that idea then 

 

[RedanTiger]

Unlike a lot of the posts about on-field success I do NOT believe the board should be involved in the daily operation of the footy department.
I think it is one of the key reasons why clubs fail, Board members running around interfering in areas they have no idea about.

IMO the board is there to arrange and oversee the finances to best advantage the club in hiring the best people and letting them do the job.
This does NOT mean hiring people, regardless of their reputation, to any more than 3 year contracts.
Wallace was hired on a five year contract and even after it became clear it was too long, the board then hired Craig Cameron on a five year contract and then promoted him during his first year.

They also set the culture within the admin side of the business to be a healthy, respectful, transparent and equitable workplace. The same aims that the footy coaches have.

In terms of sponsorship, the most marketable asset we have are the players and yet when Miller was criticised for going over budget by half a million back in 2004, his response was that he was going to cut back on marketing money paid to players. NOTHING was said by the board publicly in reponse to this stupid, petty response from an employee (before he was elected with the highest vote from members). Is this restriction to our marketing in place today? 

During the Casey regime in 2004 the club incurred the debt that is still sitting there despite the great efforts of Steven Wright.
March was the Vice president and then became president.
Gary Cameron was and remains today the Treasurer.
March and Cameron have never explained what the hell they were doing while the club lost SEVEN MILLION dollars in one year.
New board directors came on board to supposedly fix our financial oversight.
As far as I know this oversight has never been explained to the members in any meaningful way.

Possibly with good reason, the membership are treated like a nuisance or financial idiots by (ALL) the board.
This is what annoys me most, there is very little transparency about the finances, procedures and responsibilities at the board or senior management level.

[Smokey]

Sorry Phil, I ain't buying.

x 2.

Phil, I appreciate your obvious strong feelings for the club and your desire to drive improvement and success but as Al said, you come across as someone who has no idea of the critical need for planning and method, rather someone who is like some of our posters on here who take the Chicken Little reactive approach to any situation.  Over the past 30 years we got ourselves in the situation we are now climbing out of by doing exactly what you propose - plenty of rah rah rah, emotion piled on thoughtless action.  We paid little or no respect to the need for a sound 'whole of club' planning approach in all areas - finance, leadership, accountability, communication, football, membership etc.  And all I read in your posts is a return to the same.

Since we rid ourselves of the final years of what I call "The Cancer Years" - Clinton Casey and his deplorable egotistical reign - we have taken slow steps forward on our road to 'recovery' in all areas of our club.  We haven't always got those steps right but we appear to be doing something now that we could not have been accused of in many of those previous 25 years - learning from our mistakes.  Miller made mistakes, Wallace was a mistake, Ian Campbell was a mistake, but overall and despite all of that our financial ship is righting itself, our football ship is righting itself, our communication ship is righting itself, our management ship is righting itself, and in doing that our respect is returning - self respect within the club and public respect outside it.  I found it interesting that you quoted the media's response to our position at the end of Round 9 this year.  It was the usual muck-raking sensationalist elements in the media and the ignorant supporters craving instant gratification who showed a lack of trust and respect and they were made to look stupid and incompetent dills when the inevitable (and obvious to a damn lot of us) started to happen from Round 10 onwards.  By the end of the season the respect stood tall and the media pack had moved on looking for softer targets.  And of course, you couldn't find a nay-sayer among our supporters if you paid them.

So in summary, I dispute your need for action, I dispute your reasons for standing, and I dispute your opinion of the current performance and direction of our club.  I applaud you for taking action on what you perceive to be a problem but I can't vote for you.

 

[camboon]

I hear where your coming from Phil and hate being unsuccessful but we / I know ( took 30 years) that there are no short term fixes and I get the feeling thats what your suggesting. It hurts but we believe it will take good planning, development and work to rise again bur some can see the vision and plan taking shape.
No sponsor does concerns me a little but as the club seems comfortable with their progress . I have learn they usually have it hand these days. ( normal business to keep quite )

Anyway I do appreciate you putting yourself  out there for criticism.

 

[yellowandback]

Funny how people hate the democratic process in a football club. There are a few on our board - including the President - who wouldve been sacked many years ago with the results they dished up. I love how all the blame is directed at Casey but not telflon March.

Still, the time to challenge has passed it needed to be done at the end of 2008 when the club was in total disarray-Wallace, Miller, Free, March - it was a disgrace and the entire competition thought we were a joke.
The "sacking" of Wallace by Newman took our amateurish running of the club to a new level - one player who had come from another club described it as one of the most unbelievable things he had seen at a club at any level.
Let's hope it has passed because no one looked good in a very dark hour at the club.

[PhilipAnderson]

Gaming Machines


Some people say that we must have more of them because they add significant revenue to our Football Club. Others say that Gaming Machines are a scourge on society and we should remove these now.

For mine this is a very difficult and sensitive area to touch on.

I absolutely see both points of view, so what does this mean that we should do.

Richmond receives revenue from Gaming Machine licences that it holds and this revenue is very important to our club at this time. Revenue that we could not replace easily if we ceased owning the licences.

Along with Gaming Machine licences comes legal responsibilities, but it is with our social responsibilities that we, as a leading club in the AFL, must excel.

[Coach]

 


You're a genius, Phil. You've got my vote

[gerkin greg]

Don't worry Phil, Davey voted to legalise incest and is taking the p1ss out of you but you've got my vote.

[Coach]

true story boys

[Carvels Ring]

Money should overrule principles and ethics, which is what u are suggesting, i think, Phil.

[gerkin greg]

Phil, how do you feel about celebrity ambassadors and number #1 ticket holders playing a marketing role for the club, and furthermore how do you feel about Gary Busey performing such a role? Obviously it would have to be part time.

thanks,
gg

[Carvels Ring]

Phil, how do you feel about celebrity ambassadors and number #1 ticket holders playing a marketing role for the club, and furthermore how do you feel about Gary Busey performing such a role? Obviously it would have to be part time.

thanks,
gg

I reckon Busey could slot in at half back, Gerki!

[gerkin greg]

I feel his talents would be severely underutilised in that role Carvel. I also feel you are not taking this seriously.
Philip, what do you think? Could he play half back? How do you feel about celebrities making guest appearances in the side? I've always wanted to see Elle McPherson take on 18 guys.

thanks,
gg

[Carvels Ring]

Elle is probably outside of our age requirements.  maybe a younger model.

[Infamy]

Gaming Machines


Some people say that we must have more of them because they add significant revenue to our Football Club. Others say that Gaming Machines are a scourge on society and we should remove these now.

For mine this is a very difficult and sensitive area to touch on.

I absolutely see both points of view, so what does this mean that we should do.

Richmond receives revenue from Gaming Machine licences that it holds and this revenue is very important to our club at this time. Revenue that we could not replace easily if we ceased owning the licences.

Along with Gaming Machine licences comes legal responsibilities, but it is with our social responsibilities that we, as a leading club in the AFL, must excel.

You definitely could make a career in politics with an answer like that