Richmond Board Nomination

[10 FLAGS]

The only question remaining on Phils candidacy is "Should 10 Flags have run instead of Phil for the Board?"

[Loui Tufga]

The only question remaining on Phils candidacy is "Should 10 Flags have run instead of Phil for the Board?"

Why not...........All you have to do is tell us "How" you are going to implement any changes and we would all vote for you

[10 FLAGS]

Implementation is simple. We come on here and the powerbrokers on OER decide whether or not we can proceed. Without OER's powerbrokers determining RFC policy the club cannot move forward 

[yellowandback]

"this is only the 2nd time I can remember where we have been in this sitauation of a delay in releasing merch because of a major sponsor not being on board. We aren't the first club it has happened to and we wont be the last"

when was the 1st time? How many GMs of Operations (Sales&Marketing) have we had during that time?
Do we currently have the right people or is that why our CEO is involved?

"And yes personally, I think we have the right management team and structure at the Club now to get the absolute best deal for this footy club.   "

why do you think that way?
How do you know they are going to get the best deal?
What is it the club have changed to improve the outcome this time?

You say that we have the right management team but honestly is that based on anything other than blind faith when you look at in context of gaining sponsorship $?

[Loui Tufga]

"And yes personally, I think we have the right management team and structure at the Club now to get the absolute best deal for this footy club.   "

why do you think that way?
How do you know they are going to get the best deal?
What is it the club have changed to improve the outcome this time?

You say that we have the right management team but honestly is that based on anything other than blind faith when you look at in context of gaining sponsorship $?

Blind faith? surly you can see the current board has made massive in road's in the past couple of years? I have faith in both what they have achieved and direction they are taking us in, why cut there legs off now and send us back to square one??

[yellowandback]

I agree board have provided better direction and purpose in the past year or so.


And I agree that this us not the time to change the board,we veered off topic and when talking sponsorship, I just see a disturbing trend with lost sponsorships and a lack of thought into establishing long term relationships. Luxbet and DS are a classic case of only ever being a short term appointment so where was the planning to replace at a major level well before renewal was up?
The appointment of Benny Gale gives me confidence that they will address sponsorship related issues in the long term.
However, it is still a hole in our business, it's one thing to have the right intent, another thing to have the capability to execute.

[Carvels Ring]

The sting has gone out of this now.  I think most have voted or made up their minds who to vote for.  The two newbies have said their piece and we have replied.  Good luck to everyone, but I think the incumbents will prevail.

[WilliamPowell]

when was the 1st time? How many GMs of Operations (Sales&Marketing) have we had during that time?
Do we currently have the right people or is that why our CEO is involved?

When we were trying to replace AFG at the end of 2008. Luxbet came on board it the Feb of 2009. And don't forget during that time we had a sponsor (sporstbet.com) that was commited long term but the AFL in their wisdom vetoed it..

The CEO is involved becasue he should be the buck stops with him. The CEO should be involved in the high end of negotiations. Do you seriously believe that Gart Pert wasn't involved in the CGU deal or that Brian Cook doesn't get involved in at Geelong? Peter Jackson when CEO at the Bombers did the Samsung deal.

why do you think that way?
How do you know they are going to get the best deal?
What is it the club have changed to improve the outcome this time?

You say that we have the right management team but honestly is that based on anything other than blind faith when you look at in context of gaining sponsorship $?

One of the reasons I think that way is because the Club have made decisions that I DON'T agree with. I am a coterie member and in 2011 the Club have changed the structure of a couple of the groups. I don't agree with the changes but after discussing it with them I understand why they've done it. Making tough calls and not pandering to a few shows strong leadership IMHO

How do you know they aren't going for the and aren't going to get the best deal?

I said before my views aren't based on blind faith. They are based on alot of research and first hand experience. But if you believe that they are simply blind faith then that's your choice     

[gerkin greg]

Are you saying the club used to pander to you WP 

[WilliamPowell]

Are you saying the club used to pander to you WP 

  gee I wish Gerk

No I think in the past they have pandered to a number of groups (some influential supporters & the higher end coteries). In the past I reckon they were always trying to keep them happy at any cost sometimes to the detiriment of the club. 

It's always been my view that no one member is more important than another and as such no member, influential supporter or sponsor has the right to dictate to the Club what the Club should or shouldn't do. And as members/supporters we shouldn't put conditions on how we support the Club. That is if we don't get what we want we crack the sads and walk away. The Club needs to be as transparent as it can be and in my case with regard to my coterie group I made a phone call and they have explained to me why they have made the changes they have

I think I've just expalined what I stand for perhaps I should have nominated for the board 

[yellowandback]

You always make a good case WP and this is no different.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the subject of sponsorship although I would be interested to understand more about the changes to the dept.
It seemed a little chaotic, under resourced and lacking in direction in late 2008/09 from what I'd heard.
The loss of 3 major sponsors (understand ds and luxbet continue in lesser role but substantially less $) and a number of smaller ones had me doubting if it had been fixed.
But it sounds like it's a Benny Gale ledrecovery on a number of fronts.

[PhilipAnderson]

I have placed a post on my blog http://philipandersontigers.wordpress.com/ that I wish to copy for you all to read:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Unfortunately, I was not successful in gaining a seat on the board, however, I would like to state that it has been a process of engaging with the membership, which I have found to be very informative.

To those that voted for me, thank you for your trust and support and should I nominate again for the board I hope that you will again place your trust in me.

I have personally congratulated each of the board members that were returned and I very much look forward to their contribution to sustained success going forward.

Certainly, I will remain involved and I will very much look forward to the board providing the results that have been put on the table during this years election.

I am committed to a successful Richmond both on and off the field and if there is an opportunity for me to play a role in the future then I would strongly consider this at the time.

The debate has been a healthy process for the Richmond Football Club and I feel that all boards should be made accountable as was the case this year. The membership has spoken, however, and this means that we must now move forward together with the common goal of ensuring that Richmond once again becomes a powerhouse of the AFL competition.

I very much look forward to this time.

Thank you all again for allowing me to contribute to this years election.

[Coach]

Good on ya, Phil.

[WilliamPowell]

As most people would be aware the 3 incumbents were returned after the election

I must say one of the most interesting points about the election to me at least was the fact that only 3000 people voted in the election

Anyway the results

March - 2400+ votes
Matties - 1800+ votes
Haines - 1200+ votes
McKay - 1070 something votes
Anderson just over 700 votes

Credit to both Phillip & Neil for being their last night  , unlike ANthony Mithen who was a no show last year after being voted out 

[one-eyed]

I must say one of the most interesting points about the election to me at least was the fact that only 3000 people voted in the election

Probably a sign most members were happy with the incumbents. The difference though to a board election of a typical public company is that non-voters aren't automatically proxy votes for the Chairman (President).