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

[Penelope]

how can you say the people that instigated and pushed the change are not responsible for it?

[WilliamPowell]

Who proposed the amendment WP?

The board

But who proposed it really isnt relevant

It could have easily been defeated if people had bothered to take an interest and vote

All the things that had me believing at the time it was a very poor idea have come to fruition

We are reaping what we sowed

People keep banging on about complacency.on the board and with the club

Stuth members were bloody complacent on this issue

Would love to know how many of these people disillusioned with the club and  considering running for the board were there that night qand voted YES or just didnt bother

[WilliamPowell]

how can you say the people that instigated and pushed the change are not responsible for it?

Easily. They are a small number. They couldn't just do it without the members voting

It had to be voted on. It could only succeed if the YES vote was greater than the NO vote.

If members (especially those who are now showing their collective angst against it) had bothered to show some interest, turned up on the night and voted it may not have gone thorugh.

It did so here we are

[Penelope]

yet it never would have happened if they never proposed it in the first place, but they take no responsibility for it?

ok then.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Thanks WP. Now you've refreshed my memory I'll go outside and commit harikari. 

[Harry]

Members fault .... again.

[WilliamPowell]

yet it never would have happened if they never proposed it in the first place, but they take no responsibility for it?

ok then.

Yes they propsed it and they are responsible for that

But the members are also responsible and that cannot be ignored

Whack the club but whack the members too. They are not blameless here.

But i suppose its easier to just blame club and not say others are as equally responsible

[Francois Jackson]

Perhaps if some of you weren't so worried what Russo was or wasn't going to, you would have noticed that little tactic which happened around the same time

Who cares anyway his gone soon enough just like captain shettino on the costa cordia

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Perhaps if some of you weren't so worried what Russo was or wasn't going to, you would hand noticed that little tactic which happened around the same time

Who cares anyway his gone soon enough just like captain shettino on the costa cordia

Not gone at all.....

[cub]

Are these idiots serious are they that stupid God fn help me

[mightytiges]

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?

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?

Here it is discussed in late November 2011. The AGM that year was on Dec. 21 (so 3-4 weeks later than the annoucement).

Constitution changes explained
richmondfc.com.au
11:39 AM Mon 28 Nov, 2011

Richmond President Gary March spoke to richmondfc.com.au to explain the changes to the Club’s constitution.

RFC: What is the major constitutional change being proposed by the board?

Gary March: It is widely-acknowledged, best practice among leading corporations, that boards should comprise a mix of elected and appointed directors. The current Richmond constitution allows for nine elected directors - the board is proposing that a constitutional amendment be made to allow for three directors to be appointed. A board of nine would therefore comprise six elected directors and three appointed directors.  The appointed directors would not be allowed to serve more than two terms.

RFC: Why is this good for my football club?

GM: Like many corporations and other elite sporting clubs - including other highly-successful AFL clubs - this change will enable the board to identify people with the expertise, and skill set, to significantly enhance the business of the Richmond Football Club. This would be a very positive move. The AFL landscape is becoming increasingly competitive and it is important that we provide ourselves with every opportunity to engage the best people to give us the best chance to compete and lead.

RFC: Are there any other changes that I need to be aware of?

GM: It has also been proposed by the board that - at its discretion - a senior executive of the Club may be appointed to the board as an Executive Director. In making this change, and to accommodate an additional appointment, we are also proposing that the constitution allows for the board to comprise up to 10 directors.

RFC: Why did the board decide to make these changes now?

GM: The board has undertaken a comprehensive review of its governance structures, and practices, to ensure it operates effectively on behalf of the members. The proposed changes are in line with the recommendations that came out of this review and will ensure our Club’s board becomes more efficient and effective.

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/126610/default.aspx

OER's thread about it at the time: http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=14398.msg271411#msg271411

[mightytiges]

My view 5 years on about this hasn't changed.

I have no issue with the idea of an executive director if it's Benny Gale. It's pretty standard practice to have managing directors on company boards.

However I agree with Ramps about having non-elected board members. It's not as though under the current constitutional arrangements that the Board can't appoint and bring in people they want. If a potential board member turns down an opportunity to be on the Board because he/she is afraid of being held to account for their performance every 3 years via a democratic vote by the members (ie. shareholders) of the Club then you have to ask if that person is the right person to be director. Is the Club now saying as members we can't be trusted and are too stupid to understand to do what is best for the Club  . Obviously some at the top need a reminder without us there wouldn't be a Club to be a Board member of after the past 30 years of abysmal failure.

I was astonished at the time [and still are] that only about 4? people [IIRC all from OER] out of 70 members attending the AGM that year stood up for members' full democratic rights and voted against the constitutional changes.

I remember someone asking me straight after the vote why I voted against it and the reason was that this stripping of our full democratic rights will comeback to bite us as members in the years to come.

At the time in 2011, everyone was happy with the direction the Club was heading after only two years of Benny Gale and Hardwick, but supporting democracy isn't about when things are going right. It's about when things go wrong and the ability for members to make ALL directors accountable and use that democratic vote to make changes to the Board if need be.

It's been a harsh lesson for RFC members and supporters in what you lose when you directly or indirectly [by not voting = chairman proxy votes] give up your democratic rights based on blind faith or apathy. The RFC belongs to us who bleed yellow and black and the Board and everyone underneath works for our club not theirs.

[Penelope]

yet it never would have happened if they never proposed it in the first place, but they take no responsibility for it?

ok then.

Yes they propsed it and they are responsible for that

But the members are also responsible and that cannot be ignored

Whack the club but whack the members too. They are not blameless here.

But i suppose its easier to just blame club and not say others are as equally responsible

um, no one has said that the members are not to blame, but someone has said the club is not?

[Jackstar 1960]

That night at the AGM was intimating to say the least
I attended
Few out there put there hand up

[WilliamPowell]

Perhaps if some of you weren't so worried what Russo was or wasn't going to, you would have noticed that little tactic which happened around the same time

Who cares anyway his gone soon enough just like captain shettino on the costa cordia

Thats is wrong

The constitutional changes happened 5 years ago. Not last year

If yiu going to whack get your facts and timelines right.

And don't forget your mate Joe said Hardwick was a good coach and should be kept