Board Election 2015 / Chadwick & O’Shannassy re-elected [update]

[Stalin]

 

[WilliamPowell]

This article is exactly why I'd prefer guys like Russo. People ask what prospective board members would do to help the club and yet we rarely see the same accountability from existing board members

Have I missed something???? I've checked out the Russo website etc

And I keep coming back to the same thing

What exactly has Russo said he is going to do? Or more to the point how is going to bring about the premiership success that consistently goes on about.

I am not happy with a number of things at board level, board appointed directors being one and the noms committee being another (but there is more than those).

I know some people are unhappy about how the replacement for the Walsh came about but under the constitution that appointment has been made correctly (part of the constitution that wasn't changed BTW)

But and people won't like reading this; we has members need to take some responsilibity for part of situation we find ourselves in. People allowed the constitutional changes to go through. We are now reaping to a point what was sown by apathy

The board and in particular the CEO pushed hard for these changes. As MT mentioned 3 people turned up on the night and voted against the changes (4 votes in all as one person held a proxy). Everyone else by either attendance and voting or more than likely not attending and voting meant the changes went through no questions.

However, we now seem to have people complaining about how people get on the board

Alternatively, we have people who are standing for election that offer very little substance in their pitch other than to criticise the current board (with a bit of White ant-ing behind the scenes thrown in for good measure in it seems). Or the standard play on people's emotion by promising things they refuse to give any detail on how they intend to deliver. Where were they when all these changes happened?

Anyways Off the soapbox and back to Caro's article

IMHO Caro makes a number of valid points, yes the headline is emotive (she doesn't create the headline; domain of the editors) but parts of her article ar more than fair

[Owl]

When the board stuffs up, then you kick up a stink, not just because you want to stuff around with our club and use it to bolster your megalomaniacal ego.  Go buy a stuffing Ferrari or Harley Davidson ffs.

[Smokey]

When the board stuffs up, then you kick up a stink, not just because you want to stuff around with our club and use it to bolster your megalomaniacal ego.  Go buy a stuffing Ferrari or Harley Davidson ffs.

x 2

[Jonesracing82]

this Russo bloke seems a bit of a trouble maker, has refused to do any interviews to get on the board etc....
put up or shut up mate!

[Diocletian]

Very emotive headline 

Yeah, seems to be a headline designed to tear at the heart of club stability?

Exactly.

[Penelope]

This article is exactly why I'd prefer guys like Russo. People ask what prospective board members would do to help the club and yet we rarely see the same accountability from existing board members

Have I missed something???? I've checked out the Russo website etc

And I keep coming back to the same thing

What exactly has Russo said he is going to do? Or more to the point how is going to bring about the premiership success that consistently goes on about.

I am not happy with a number of things at board level, board appointed directors being one and the noms committee being another (but there is more than those).

I know some people are unhappy about how the replacement for the Walsh came about but under the constitution that appointment has been made correctly (part of the constitution that wasn't changed BTW)

But and people won't like reading this; we has members need to take some responsilibity for part of situation we find ourselves in. People allowed the constitutional changes to go through. We are now reaping to a point what was sown by apathy

The board and in particular the CEO pushed hard for these changes. As MT mentioned 3 people turned up on the night and voted against the changes (4 votes in all as one person held a proxy). Everyone else by either attendance and voting or more than likely not attending and voting meant the changes went through no questions.

However, we now seem to have people complaining about how people get on the board

Alternatively, we have people who are standing for election that offer very little substance in their pitch other than to criticise the current board (with a bit of White ant-ing behind the scenes thrown in for good measure in it seems). Or the standard play on people's emotion by promising things they refuse to give any detail on how they intend to deliver. Where were they when all these changes happened?

Anyways Off the soapbox and back to Caro's article

IMHO Caro makes a number of valid points, yes the headline is emotive (she doesn't create the headline; domain of the editors) but parts of her article ar more than fair

On what basis do you believe that a popularity contest will get the best people for the job in?

You complain about directors being appointed rather than elected, then complain about people like russo who give a very good spin that will encourage a lot of people to vote for him, despite not having any real substance? People who know that elections are not won with substance, but emotion and populist double speak?

Or is there a third option for getting people onto the board you know about but haven't told us?

[WilliamPowell]

On what basis do you believe that a popularity contest will get the best people for the job in?

I don't and that's my point. 

You complain about directors being appointed rather than elected, then complain about people like russo who give a very good spin that will encourage a lot of people to vote for him, despite not having any real substance? People who know that elections are not won with substance, but emotion and populist double speak?

I have been very consistent with my view about constitutional changes that bought in Directors being appointed by the board. So yes I do complain about it because it makes it very easy for a rotating "jobs for the boys and girls" board table and that isn't a good thing.  So this isn't a case where I've suddenly decided to voice my concerns about it.

I complain about people like Russo and their "spin" because I think we as members deserve better than that. Why? Because that approach treats the members like gullible fools which I don't think the majority are.

Some may disagree with that view but that's how I see it. IMESHO we deserve better than spin.

How hard is it to come and actually be honest and lay all your cards on the table and put some substance behind what you are standing for? Rather than just playing the one card you know will get a great number on your side?

I have absolutely no problem with people standing for the board. I actually am in favour of it but it has to be for the right reasons and done the right way.

My issue with Russo in particular is that I am not sure what his reasons are? He can stand up and say "it's about premierships" but he hasn't told me how is intends to bring/win the said premierships. I want to know what he brings to the table. What areas does he have expertise in? What's his understanding of governance responsibilities and corps law? Outside of his own company what sort of impact can have with sponsorship? Don't think it is that hard.

I am on record as saying I don't agree the noms committee but it is there and so out of respect for the Club and the process that is now in place Russo should have meet with them. Yes, he didn't have to but he should have. The reasons he gave are not valid IMV. He suggested he wouldn't get treated fairly by them if he met them. He then went on to say he had "heard" that the noms committee wouldn't recommend anyone who didn't have a tertiary qualification and that was another reason he didn't meet with them. How does he know that? They were poor excuses when he should have backed himself to impress these people.

At least Dowd has gone through the entire process as it stands rather than picking and chosing. 

Or is there a third option for getting people onto the board you know about but haven't told us?

Not sure what you mean here or might be implying. But no I don't know of any other way of getting on the board other than the methods covered under the constitution.

[Penelope]

You miss the point completely.

bottom line, if you think having the uneducated masses voting on who spins them around the best is a better way than having a process that nearly every employee has to go through, dont complain about people like Russo. He is playing the process you want in place, in the best way it is to play that process

[rogerd3]

This article is exactly why I'd prefer guys like Russo. People ask what prospective board members would do to help the club and yet we rarely see the same accountability from existing board members

Have I missed something???? I've checked out the Russo website etc

And I keep coming back to the same thing

What exactly has Russo said he is going to do? Or more to the point how is going to bring about the premiership success that consistently goes on about.

I am not happy with a number of things at board level, board appointed directors being one and the noms committee being another (but there is more than those).

I know some people are unhappy about how the replacement for the Walsh came about but under the constitution that appointment has been made correctly (part of the constitution that wasn't changed BTW)

But and people won't like reading this; we has members need to take some responsilibity for part of situation we find ourselves in. People allowed the constitutional changes to go through. We are now reaping to a point what was sown by apathy

The board and in particular the CEO pushed hard for these changes. As MT mentioned 3 people turned up on the night and voted against the changes (4 votes in all as one person held a proxy). Everyone else by either attendance and voting or more than likely not attending and voting meant the changes went through no questions.

However, we now seem to have people complaining about how people get on the board

Alternatively, we have people who are standing for election that offer very little substance in their pitch other than to criticise the current board (with a bit of White ant-ing behind the scenes thrown in for good measure in it seems). Or the standard play on people's emotion by promising things they refuse to give any detail on how they intend to deliver. Where were they when all these changes happened?

Anyways Off the soapbox and back to Caro's article

IMHO Caro makes a number of valid points, yes the headline is emotive (she doesn't create the headline; domain of the editors) but parts of her article ar more than fair

Agree WP.
is it correct we actually made a loss this year?

[taztiger4]

This article is exactly why I'd prefer guys like Russo. People ask what prospective board members would do to help the club and yet we rarely see the same accountability from existing board members

Have I missed something???? I've checked out the Russo website etc

And I keep coming back to the same thing

What exactly has Russo said he is going to do? Or more to the point how is going to bring about the premiership success that consistently goes on about.

I am not happy with a number of things at board level, board appointed directors being one and the noms committee being another (but there is more than those).

I know some people are unhappy about how the replacement for the Walsh came about but under the constitution that appointment has been made correctly (part of the constitution that wasn't changed BTW)

But and people won't like reading this; we has members need to take some responsilibity for part of situation we find ourselves in. People allowed the constitutional changes to go through. We are now reaping to a point what was sown by apathy

The board and in particular the CEO pushed hard for these changes. As MT mentioned 3 people turned up on the night and voted against the changes (4 votes in all as one person held a proxy). Everyone else by either attendance and voting or more than likely not attending and voting meant the changes went through no questions.

However, we now seem to have people complaining about how people get on the board

Alternatively, we have people who are standing for election that offer very little substance in their pitch other than to criticise the current board (with a bit of White ant-ing behind the scenes thrown in for good measure in it seems). Or the standard play on people's emotion by promising things they refuse to give any detail on how they intend to deliver. Where were they when all these changes happened?

Anyways Off the soapbox and back to Caro's article

IMHO Caro makes a number of valid points, yes the headline is emotive (she doesn't create the headline; domain of the editors) but parts of her article ar more than fair

Agree WP.
is it correct we actually made a loss this year?

What ? We made nearly half mil profit ???

Remember We are a not for profit organisation , I prefer the term not for loss organisation

Sure the JDF  & FTF helped but aren't they part of our core business ?

[Francois Jackson]

  come on WP. Explain how russo is any better or worse than the current appointed clowns on there.

half a million dollars spent on their kolo. Still ranked 8th on footy club spend. Most clubs dont win a flag in that position so what are we missing?

Russo for mine  the joint needs some fresh ideas and a finals win FFS:thumbsup

[WilliamPowell]

Agree WP.
is it correct we actually made a loss this year?

Nope,been through the numbers, we made a profit

[WilliamPowell]

come on WP. Explain how russo is any better or worse than the current appointed clowns on there.

half a million dollars spent on their kolo. Still ranked 8th on footy club spend. Most clubs dont win a flag in that position so what are we missing?

Russo for mine  the joint needs some fresh ideas and a finals win FFS:thumbsup

Actually you've just highlighted what has concerns re Russo.

You've just said the "joint needs fresh idea" but as I've said all along Russo hasn't put forward one. He's played on people's emotions, frustrations call it what you want.

Give me some ideas, some idea of what you intend to bring to the table and I'll listen. He refuses to do that? But if change for the sake of it for no other reason is what's important to your decision making process - go for it

And just on the other "clowns" as you call them, are they all clowns or just a selected few?

[Penelope]

lmao. whenever you need proof of the fallibility of the masses making such decisions daniel will provide it.

Russo will help win a final?
 
what position does he play?