Richmond board battle flares again with businessman Peter Casey to challenge

[one-eyed]

Website: http://www.tiger-land.com.au/

[one-eyed]

Tiger board battle flares again with businessman to challenge

AFL.com.au
12 November 2016


THE BOARD ructions at Richmond are not over, with Melbourne businessman Peter Casey nominating to replace one of two club directors up for re-election.

Nominations for the Richmond board close on Monday, with Casey seeking to run as "the member's board member" against incumbent directors Emmett Dunne and Kerry Ryan.   

While Dunne, a 1980 premiership player, only filled the casual position vacated by John Mathies in September, his spot needs to be put up for general election.

Ryan, meanwhile, has completed her first three-year term and will re-stand after joining the board in October 2013.

President Peggy O'Neal was to face re-election this year but has been locked into a fresh three-year term as the club's 'appointed director'. 

Under a 2011 change to the Tigers' constitution, the board can nominate an 'appointed director', who is effectively shielded from standing for a member election. 

Lawyer Simon Wallace, who released an extensive 21-page prospectus of his views in August, is also expected to confirm his nomination ahead of Monday’s 6pm deadline.   

Once nominations close, members will have the opportunity to vote electronically before the successful candidates are announced at the club's annual general meeting next month.

Casey is not associated with the failed Focus on Footy group, which launched a brief campaign earlier this year, and says he wants to work with the current board to give fans the success they crave. 

With 20 years experience as a "successful change management specialist", Casey has held roles with the International Monetary Fund and Australian Tax Office.

"Unlike most of the Richmond football club board, he is not a lawyer," his campaign release states.

He has started a number of social media channels and is preparing to launch his campaign as a voice of the club's disillusioned members. 

"Change has been feared for too long at Richmond, it should be embraced," he said in a statement.

"The members are demanding change. It’s essential for growth and I want to be the member’s board member.

"If people aren’t performing they should be leaving."

Casey has already met with the club's nominations committee, which is made up of O'Neal, director Rob Dalton, marketing professional Ben Crowe and Ryan.

Richmond has held just two elections in the past seven years, with directors serving long terms and standing for re-election unopposed.

The club has pointed to its stability at board level in recent times as a positive, but now has only one director – Rex Chadwick – whose initial appointment came via an election.

Earlier this month the club's governance committee recommended that term limits for directors be introduced to the constitution.

Members will vote to amend the constitution at the annual general meeting on December 14.

"This has been under consideration for more than 12 months and various models were investigated … the board accepted the recommendations," O'Neal said earlier this month.

The Tigers' board has been under fire in 2016 after a horror season, with two separate groups plotting board coups simultaneously.

Focus on Footy, a ticket that included premiership players Bryan Wood and Bruce Monteath, launched a short-lived campaign in September.

Another prominent group that met regularly at the Malvern Hotel had planned a 'bloodless coup' targeting long-serving board members, but their challenge never came to fruition.

Long-time board agitator Joe Russo unsuccessfully challenged for the board last year along with fellow candidate Jason Dowd.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-12/tiger-board-battle-flares-again

[one-eyed]

Peter Casey says Richmond members are fed up with being kept in the dark by the club

Anthony Galloway
Herald Sun
November 12, 2016 6:30pm

THE Richmond Football Club is facing another board challenge with senior business adviser Peter Casey saying the club has lost its way by placing corporate success over on field wins.

Casey said there was a lack of transparency and accountability placed on board members and senior management, questioning the decision to hand coach Damien Hardwick a two-year contract extension in March.

The lifelong Tigers supporter is a former assistant commissioner at the Australian Taxation Office and currently a senior consultant with Telstra and member of the International Monetary Fund’s panel of experts.

In an exclusive interview with the Sunday Herald Sun, Casey said members were fed up with being kept in the dark.

“A lot of people have said to me in terms of the lack of visibility of decision-making, the decision to extend Damien’s contract, they are not sure what the basis of that decision was,” Casey said.

“The club stated there were metrics upon which that decision was made, but there’s no clarity about what those metrics were and how Damien may or may not have met those.”

Casey also questioned the decision to appoint an external consultant in July to undertake a review into the club’s football department.

“It’s not so much that I would question the decision being made, it’s clearly the purview of the board and the CEO, but members are looking for more clarity about why those decisions have been made,” he said.

“It’s not one particular event. There’s a number of things the club has done — decisions taken within the four walls and a lack of ability of members to see why those decisions have been made.”

Members will vote on two board positions leading up to the club’s annual general meeting on December 14, with directors Kerry Ryan and Emmett Dunne up for re-election.

Casey, 57, said he wanted to be the fans’ board member responsible for driving on field success, saying the club had “lost its way”.

”If people aren’t performing they should be leaving,” Casey said.

“Tiger success should be based on finals success not corporate balance sheets. Directors’ tenures should be tied to on field success and the same should apply to the CEO, the President, me and the football department.

“I’m really keen on governance. Things can be improved but there’s a strong need to get the culture of accountability — giving people roles and responsibilities and the holding them accountable for that.”

On the performance of board members including president Peggy O’Neal, Casey said: “It’s an ongoing process. Setting those standards and reviewing people’s performance against those standards. That’s a constant review.”

The change management specialist said there was also a need to bring the club’s traditions back including the traditional jersey.

Casey went to his first game at the age of seven with his aunt, and will never forget seeing the likes of Kevin Bartlett, Paddy Guinane, Bill Barrot and Dick Clay.

”Those Richmond greats played the game without fear, with fervour and were very ferocious and tenacious. It was just exhilarating to watch,” he said.

Casey said he was not aligned in any way to the renegade “Focus on Footy” group, which announced a challenge in September before soon abandoning its takeover bid, saying he was committed to working with the current board.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/richmond/peter-casey-says-richmond-members-are-fed-up-with-being-kept-in-the-dark-by-the-club/news-story/b41c22cec04c2bd0503d9ba39b8eaa20

[(•))(©™]

Come on.

Let's hear why THIS guy is a shitman.

[(•))(©™]

I must have missed when this happened.

President Peggy O'Neal was to face re-election this year but has been locked into a fresh three-year term as the club's 'appointed director'. 

How the stuff did Hillary pull that poo off?
Silent women's vote?

[taztiger4]

I must have missed when this happened.

President Peggy O'Neal was to face re-election this year but has been locked into a fresh three-year term as the club's 'appointed director'. 

How the stuff did Hillary pull that poo off?
Silent women's vote?

it was passed by the members 5 years ago , see below some Q&A with G March at the time
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

[Hard Roar Tiger]

I like the angle that this bloke is taking with the board and himself - accountability to on field success
It's most probably odd - I'd imagine the rank and file might see this as non core to a boards responsibilities but therein lies the problem.
At the moment, it appears making money is the main default position for success - despite the fact most of the money made is delivered by supporters through membership receipts and glorified chook raffles.
Making the board accountable for on field results re-directs the focus of the board to the things that matter.
It also holds accountable their appointments of Dan Richardson, Blair Shartley, Dimma etc and ultimately Benny Gale.

[taztiger4]

Refresher from 5 years ago

Tigers propose change to board elections
Jake Niall
December 7, 2011
The Age

RICHMOND is attempting a major reform of its board structure, asking the club's members to allow it to appoint, rather than elect, three of the club's nine board directors.

The Tigers say this would enable them to hand pick the best available person to fill a particular need. The remaining six would still have to be elected by the members.

Richmond president Gary March contends that some highly capable people have been reluctant to take a place on the club board because they do not want to face an election.

The proposal, which requires a change in the club constitution, will either be ratified or opposed by the members at the club's annual general meeting on December 21. Some members have already voiced opposition to the change, but March said he believed they were ''a vocal minority''.

''We just want to attract the best people to the Richmond board,'' he said.

March said, under the proposed change, the appointed directors would have a limit of two terms, while those elected would have no term limits.

March said, if adopted, the new board system would be in line with other clubs, such as Essendon and most of the interstate clubs, which have appointed directors. The change would not take effect until next year and would be ''phased in''.

Many clubs have the capacity to appoint a director to fill a casual vacancy, as the Tigers recently did when they seconded ex-Cricket Australia boss Malcolm Speed and accountant Carl Walsh to fill vacancies. Speed and Walsh have been elected unopposed, along with football director and former captain Tony Free.

The club board has been in regular contact with Sydney-based Mark Nelson and James Carnegie, successful in investment management and venture capital respectively, and has sounded them out about possible involvement ''down the track'', as March put it. ''I think they have an inclination to get involved at some time in the future.''

March said the change gave the club the chance to pick high calibre people who filled ''a specific skill set'' rather than having a board that could, theoretically, be filled with ''eight ex-footballers or nine lawyers''.

But March said it was up to the members to decide on the change.

''At the end of the day, it's the members' decision. If they don't like what the board's proposing, they'll vote against it and things will stay as is. We think it's what the club needs, but it's their decision.''

The members can vote by proxies prior to the AGM and have already received information about the change in the mail.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tigers-propose-change-to-board-elections-20111206-1oh4s.html#ixzz1flwiHudJ

[(•))(©™]

Refresher from 5 years ago

Tigers propose change to board elections
Jake Niall
December 7, 2011
The Age

RICHMOND is attempting a major reform of its board structure, asking the club's members to allow it to appoint, rather than elect, three of the club's nine board directors.

The Tigers say this would enable them to hand pick the best available person to fill a particular need. The remaining six would still have to be elected by the members.

Richmond president Gary March contends that some highly capable people have been reluctant to take a place on the club board because they do not want to face an election.

The proposal, which requires a change in the club constitution, will either be ratified or opposed by the members at the club's annual general meeting on December 21. Some members have already voiced opposition to the change, but March said he believed they were ''a vocal minority''.

''We just want to attract the best people to the Richmond board,'' he said.

March said, under the proposed change, the appointed directors would have a limit of two terms, while those elected would have no term limits.

March said, if adopted, the new board system would be in line with other clubs, such as Essendon and most of the interstate clubs, which have appointed directors. The change would not take effect until next year and would be ''phased in''.

Many clubs have the capacity to appoint a director to fill a casual vacancy, as the Tigers recently did when they seconded ex-Cricket Australia boss Malcolm Speed and accountant Carl Walsh to fill vacancies. Speed and Walsh have been elected unopposed, along with football director and former captain Tony Free.

The club board has been in regular contact with Sydney-based Mark Nelson and James Carnegie, successful in investment management and venture capital respectively, and has sounded them out about possible involvement ''down the track'', as March put it. ''I think they have an inclination to get involved at some time in the future.''

March said the change gave the club the chance to pick high calibre people who filled ''a specific skill set'' rather than having a board that could, theoretically, be filled with ''eight ex-footballers or nine lawyers''.

But March said it was up to the members to decide on the change.

''At the end of the day, it's the members' decision. If they don't like what the board's proposing, they'll vote against it and things will stay as is. We think it's what the club needs, but it's their decision.''

The members can vote by proxies prior to the AGM and have already received information about the change in the mail.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tigers-propose-change-to-board-elections-20111206-1oh4s.html#ixzz1flwiHudJ

Thanks Taz.

"Because they didn't want to face election ??"

That just doesn't stand up. Sorry.

Change that poo back.

[Yeahright]

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.

In other words: we don't trust the voting members to make the right decisions

The club has pointed to its stability at board level in recent times as a positive, but now has only one director – Rex Chadwick – whose initial appointment came via an election.

And this is the result of their "expertise" in choosing the right people

[WilliamPowell]

I have made my views on the constitutional changes that came on 5 years ago very clear.

Very few cared 5 years ago, because the nimber of people who voted proved that. Now everyone is up in arms about it where were you 5 years ago? Could have stopped it but no onegavea stuff. Can't have it both ways folks. Apathy, gave us tnis mess. I know people blame the board but members are to blae as well.

But back to Peter Casey

Absolutely fabulous that we have another person prepared to do this right way. And what I mean by that is being prepared to face the memebers rather than wanting to be gifted positions via a coup.

But more importantly spmeone prepared to tell us what they stand for. Brilliant 

I have always intended to vote for Simon Wallace for these very reasons now we have another new faces

As I said brilliant 

[Raoul Duke]

Who's to say the system doesn't work?


And I don't think the changes were intended to be abused in the way that they are.
People are voicing their opinions now because there is a clear mistrust with our board/president.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Who's to say the system doesn't work?


And I don't think the changes were intended to be abused in the way that they are.
People are voicing their opinions now because there is a clear mistrust with our board/president.

I tend to agree on your last point. The whole purpose of appointment was to get good people in who wouldn't have come if faced with campaigning for votes. It was not meant to protect incumbents from having to face reelection.

[Yeahright]

Who's to say the system doesn't work?


And I don't think the changes were intended to be abused in the way that they are.
People are voicing their opinions now because there is a clear mistrust with our board/president.

I tend to agree on your last point. The whole purpose of appointment was to get good people in who wouldn't have come if faced with campaigning for votes. It was not meant to protect incumbents from having to face reelection.

100% spot on. Us supporters have been treated like fools.

[(•))(©™]

Who's to say the system doesn't work?
.

And I don't think the changes were intended to be abused in the way that they are.
People are voicing their opinions now because there is a clear mistrust with our board/president.

A clear breach