Just read the replies to my post.
Funny if not ironic.
A thread about changes to the Board.
I was one of the few who voted against the changes to the constitution that allows the board to appoint a third of directors.
The vote against the changes was SEVEN against of whom I personally know of four, WP and myself included.
So my question to Harry, yandb, Diocletian and Dooks - which way did you vote on the constitutional changes?
If you did not vote against them then you have at the least agreed with and condoned the changes the board made to limit the power of members to select the board.
To the point of my previous post I felt the criticism was unreasonable and untrue. We have experienced football people on the board in Free and Gale. I think that the idea of a dedicated football director can be dangerous. If only the football director has oversight of the football department then it can lead to a single vision for the future. I much prefer the entire board to be involved in our core purpose. I also resent the idea that an outsider in Dunstall can make criticisms of our club that I felt were unreasonable if not untrue.
Are you delusional? Redan any board is open to scrutiny, more so when we are underperforming which we are this year.
Trying to bully posters into not criticising the board means you have no answer to the criticisms Harry has raised all you did was trot out their C.V.'s
I agree any board should be open to scrutiny. Our's is less open than it was. As above - how did you vote to make it less open?
I think this is the first time I have ever been accused of defending the board but I guess there's a first for everything.
"Criticising the board". I think I've got a pretty good record of doing that myself so I hope nobody is influenced by me not to do so themselves. Go for it. there's enough there without reaching for reasons that are unfair.
"No football director" I directly pointed to Free as a director with football experience.
"Football manager with no experience" I directly pointed to Richardson's experience as a player and agent.
"Hardwick extension" I agree with the criticism but it's a deal done by a board supported by the membership.
"Failure to get a big name" I agree with the criticism but don't know the inner dealings enough to comment further.
"Stale, lacks direction, ruthlessness and football nous" Yeah I'd agree with all that.
I have posted, either here or on another forum, about what I saw as the corruption of appointing two new directors one month before the AGM to avoid an election. No support.
The whole point about "trotting out their CV's" is that is what you should directly base a staffing decision on. What else do you base it on if not their CV?
RT obviously finds it difficult to differentiate between the club and it's employees - quite a common affliction amongst our supporter base...
Nope. Have criticised employees quite often and have no difficulty doing so. Encourage others to do the same but I do recognise, belatedly I admit, that sometimes you just can't do a damn thing about it. The vast majority just roll along and accept what they get until it starts to really hurt. Then they tend to thrash around and vent about how it's got to stop and lets tear the walls down.
The thing about all this angst is that I have criticised many aspects of our club, particularly our board's actions for over ten years (mainly on another forum), and it was frustration at the lack of response that caused me to join this forum. Ironic that I would at this late stage be accused of defending the Richmond board.