External consultants involved in Richmond's footy dept. review: Ch 7

[yandb]

One of the replies from Peggy indicated that we have had 3 reviews in the last eight years by the Hay Group.

This would make the fourth external review.

If we get reviews from external sources for our business operation's why does our club review our football dept. internally all the time?

What is the point of having all the lawyers accountants and business experience on the board  to then spend money on an external review every two years.

Our football dept. has not had one in seven years, spend the money on an external review of the football dept.

It is more important than the business side at the moment.

[WilliamPowell]

Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board......

That was and remains a disgrace.

The CEO sitting on the baord is the fault of the members, that is an absolute FACT

The members either voted for it (those who turned up the AGM  and voted) or they complacent ones did nothing by not turing up and voting

I was there that night and on the night 4 people voted against it,  i was one of those people. So my conscience on this little issue is clear.

No point sooking about it as the members allowed it  ut now are up in arms about it

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board......

That was and remains a disgrace.

The CEO sitting on the baord is the fault of the members, that is an absolute FACT

The members either voted for it (those who turned up the AGM  and voted) or they complacent ones did nothing by not turing up and voting

I was there that night and on the night 4 people voted against it,  i was one of those people. So my conscience on this little issue is clear.

No point sooking about it as the members allowed it  ut now are up in arms about it

Can you remind me WP as I can't recall if this was put to the members beforehand or was this dished up on the night of the AGM?

[Harry]

Why did they propose it WP?  Any reason for this?  I for one wasn't aware about it after the event but had a few things going on at the time.  How did they inform the members or did they just sneak it in at the AGM?

[(•))(©™]

Gale had some ok ideas and DID do a couple of things that helped put the club into another direction BUT he's stuffed up in the last few years and not had the good faith to fall on his own sword.

[Penelope]

Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board......

That was and remains a disgrace.

The CEO sitting on the baord is the fault of the members, that is an absolute FACT

The members either voted for it (those who turned up the AGM  and voted) or they complacent ones did nothing by not turing up and voting

I was there that night and on the night 4 people voted against it,  i was one of those people. So my conscience on this little issue is clear.

No point sooking about it as the members allowed it  ut now are up in arms about it

and if they want, the members can still do something about it, but in the great aussie tradition, prefer to whine and bitch rather than actually do something about it

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board......

That was and remains a disgrace.

The CEO sitting on the baord is the fault of the members, that is an absolute FACT

The members either voted for it (those who turned up the AGM  and voted) or they complacent ones did nothing by not turing up and voting

I was there that night and on the night 4 people voted against it,  i was one of those people. So my conscience on this little issue is clear.

No point sooking about it as the members allowed it  ut now are up in arms about it

and if they want, the members can still do something about it, but in the great aussie tradition, prefer to whine and bitch rather than actually do something about it

Some people are doing something. Just hang on or even better join the revolution....

[Penelope]

who?
what?
where?
when?

You dont want the ceo sitting on the board? simple solution is to pass a motion, have it seconded and vote on it the next agm. Ill give you my proxy for it.

[tony_montana]

and mine

[YellowandBlackBlood]

When the time comes, I'll pm both of you then.

[Yeahright]

Yeah that's what I thought....won't fix our football problems....

But by reviewing business operations they assess the processes in place for things like internal reviews and how the club goes about them....

So it could have benefits

Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board......

That was and remains a disgrace.

Members fault

[Harry]

Yeah that's what I thought....won't fix our football problems....

But by reviewing business operations they assess the processes in place for things like internal reviews and how the club goes about them....

So it could have benefits

Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board......

That was and remains a disgrace.

Members fault

Again?

[yandb]

Maybe they can review how the hell our CEO also got a seat on the board......

That was and remains a disgrace.

The CEO sitting on the baord is the fault of the members, that is an absolute FACT

The members either voted for it (those who turned up the AGM  and voted) or they complacent ones did nothing by not turing up and voting

I was there that night and on the night 4 people voted against it,  i was one of those people. So my conscience on this little issue is clear.

No point sooking about it as the members allowed it  ut now are up in arms about it

Who proposed the amendment WP?

[HKTiger]

EY is not just an accountancy firm. It specializes in operational reviews and root cause  analysis work in operations and is deemed a global leader in these areas.  And a couple of the managing partners in EY Vic are big Tiger supporters.

[WilliamPowell]

Can you remind me WP as I can't recall if this was put to the members beforehand or was this dished up on the night of the AGM?

It was a change to the constitution

It certainly wasnt dished up on the night. Every single leagal requirement for a change in constitution was followed

Members were supplied with all the details weeks before the AGM. We had discussions going on here about it

From the discussions back then Majority on here didn't have an issue with it at the tine because back then the majority thought Benny Gale could walk on water, could do no wrong. Now the same folks have an issue with it

The other change was the board having the ability to appoint 3 directors as opposed all directors needing to be elected

Will say it again. You cant get all angry about the current set up seeing every voting member could have stopped it

Why did they propose it WP?  Any reason for this?  I for one wasn't aware about it after the event but had a few things going on at the time.  How did they inform the members or did they just sneak it in at the AGM?

Why? It was recommended via one of those external reviews of operations and also to bring us into line with other similar organisation

Will repeat it wasn't some sneaky little thing bought up on the night. All legal requirements were followed. All members received the relevant info about it

But when it came to vote no one bothered. On the night 4 people were the Nos.  Everyone else in the room voted yes

And can I add they were sheep because as soon as Benny put his hand up to vote yes,  the rest of room followed... apart from the no votes

So and sorry if it offends people but members are to blame here, not the club.  Time members took responsibility for thier actions or to be more precise in this case their non actions.