Trouble is brewing

[mightytiges]

Maybe I've been following this a bit longer than most, but there has not been a key decision made at our football club in the past 5 years that was not driven and implemented by Casey. Seems the board was happy for things to go this way for a long time, and a few have now decided that its not the way to go.

Everyone can cry all they want that swab and Welsh were on the board for 5 years, but like the rest of the humps, they're just bums on seats making up the quota. The direction and decisions are all Casey, and I dont want Casey to continue to make them all. He's not done such a great job. Swab & Welsh dont have strong credibilities, but its not as if Casey's appointments like Anthony Mitten to fill the vacancies are any better. Another yes man as far as I'm concerned. And after the challenge, more yes men will be put in place.

Even if that's so then don't you think that's just as damning of Schwab, Welsh and the other board members as Casey? That everyone was happy to have such lack of accountability and process (word of 2004  ) to continue for so long  ??? Casey is just one of nine and could have easily been out-voted.   

[WilliamPowell]

Anyway, let me ask you. Why do you think swab & welsh resigned if not for the reason that Casey was making decisions without consulting his board. Did they resign because of ego? Do you really believe they didnt resign because there are many problems at the club the board is either unaware of, or ignoring. Do you really believe they resigned because of personality clash with Casey or ego? Cos if you're right, this is a club that can never be fixed.

Who knows why they resigned 1980 - the reasons have changed since they first quit.

When he quit Peter Welsh said it was nothing sinister - he just didn't have the time. He had plenty of time originally because he asked all members to vote for him January and as a result he was re-elected. However, by mid March he was gone. What gives? Then he jumps on Schwabs ticket and says it is all about corporate governance - well which is it and how can you believe it?

Then we have Brendan Schwab who was on the board when Leon Daphne was president. Now the Daphne board was responsible for amongst other things approving the massive contracts to Daffy, Knights, Campbell and Richardson and giving Jeff Giecshen a contract extension in 1998. But for some strange reason we have to forget about that because well they all made that decision together - so it must be OK because it is in the past. Schwab then found himself on the board with Clinton Casey - vice president no less. Now I have said this before but before 2003 Schwab averages 8.5 board meetings a year out of 12 (2003 he managed to attend 11 of 12) so is it any wonder he isn't aware of things? He makes a decision to quit and instead of speaking directly to the members - conducts his campaign through the media, predominatly the The Age  . what a surprise.

Schwab then resigns in early 2003 and blames everything that is wrong with the Club on Clinton Casey and coveniently removes himself of any decision that has been made by the board of the RFC for the last 5 years.

Well I am sorry 1980, as a company Director you cannot and should not do that.

[1980]

Then we have Brendan Schwab who was on the board when Leon Daphne was president. Now the Daphne board was responsible for amongst other things approving the massive contracts to Daffy, Knights, Campbell and Richardson and giving Jeff Giecshen a contract extension in 1998. But for some strange reason we have to forget about that because well they all made that decision together - so it must be OK because it is in the past. Schwab then found himself on the board with Clinton Casey - vice president no less. Now I have said this before but before 2003 Schwab averages 8.5 board meetings a year out of 12 (2003 he managed to attend 11 of 12) so is it any wonder he isn't aware of things? He makes a decision to quit and instead of speaking directly to the members - conducts his campaign through the media, predominatly the The Age  . what a surprise.

Schwab then resigns in early 2003 and blames everything that is wrong with the Club on Clinton Casey and coveniently removes himself of any decision that has been made by the board of the RFC for the last 5 years.

Well I am sorry 1980, as a company Director you cannot and should not do that.

You're absolutely 100% right. They're all as bad as each other. They're all responsible for the mess of the past 5 years. So all of em should sod off. Including Casey. Especially Casey.

Most ppl would argue that Knights and Richardson are Richmond champions. JohnF can put up a very compelling argument that Campbell has been our most consistent player since that contract was signed. OUt of the 4, only Daffy failed to live up to expectations.

We were never in as bad a mess when Daphne was president. Not financially. No wooden spoons either. And he had the dignity to resign and give the job over to someone else. He put the club before himself. Casey wont.



 

[Tiger Spirit]

You're absolutely 100% right. They're all as bad as each other. They're all responsible for the mess of the past 5 years. So all of em should sod off.

They all could, if, and only if, enough Richmond members, with appropriate credentials, who are genuinely concerned about the long-term future and welfare of the Club would nominate for the Board, each and every year.

This would prevent the Board being filled with people who get on there by feeling compelled to do so, because no one else was interested, or because of some Board spill where no election takes place.

We think the only solution to this is between Casey and the alternative ticket.  But if enough independents nominate and members are unhappy with the current lot, at least three Directors can be voted off this year.  And if each and every year we have an election then we can finally have a properly constituted and responsible Board that no one can argue with.

Having an alternative ticket take over would only invite more of the same scepticism as there is now about the current Board and won’t change anything until we have a properly constituted Board where all Directors are independent and voted on by the members, rather than getting there by other means.

[WilliamPowell]

I have been unalbe to find a link to this story from Sunday's H/Sun 10/10/04. The story is titled
"Troy Given Time" by Jon Pierek.

I am staggered and disgusted  but not surprised
========================================

"...Meanwhile, the rebel Richmond ticket has stepped up its bid to overthrow the board by requestiong Tiger members be given a Senate Style vote at December's annual general meeting.

Led by Charles Macek and Brendan Schwab, the rebels have requested a change to the club's constitution.

As it stands, voting members must place a tick against each individual they want on the board.

But Macek wants members to also have the opportunity of placing a tick above their preferred ticket, as voters had the opportunity of doing on their Senate form in the yesterday's ( ed:9/10/04) election. "

======================================

Don't they trust the members to make an informed and balanced choice?

 

[Fishfinger]

I doubt they can change the constitution without the members voting for it WP. I can't see a lot wrong with the idea because I presume anyone who would rather select individual candidates could still do so, as is the case in a Federal election.
I take your point and agree that it's outrageous if they're going to try to change it before the upcoming election. Just wishful thinking on their part I suspect.

[mightytiges]

FF is correct and you need 75% majority to change the constitution.

6.12   Alteration of Articles

No new Article or alteration of any Article shall be made except by a three-fourths majority of votes recorded either in person or by proxy at an Annual General Meeting or an Extraordinary General Meeting called for the purpose in accordance with the Act.

We would need two elections (and more unnecessary money spent) for this to happen. An EGM to change the constitution then the general vote at the AGM. The Club would also need to change the part that says 3 positions up for election to 9 unless the "ticket" box only contains 3 people.

I can't see this happening.

[WilliamPowell]

I doubt they can change the constitution without the members voting for it WP.

Agree FF - I know it cannot be change without members agreeing to it. I just find it odd, disappointing and disgraceful that they would try to change it now - it comes across as "vote for us a as ticket or not at all" as well as appearing like they really don't trust the memebers to vote for individuals.

We would need two elections (and more unnecessary money spent) for this to happen. An EGM to change the constitution then the general vote at the AGM. The Club would also need to change the part that says 3 positions up for election to 9 unless the "ticket" box only contains 3 people.

This is the part that angers me the most. Here is a group that goes on and on about the Clbus finanaces but seems prepared to waste money the Club doesn't have on changes to the constitution solely to serve ther own purposes. Is this change needed? Clearly NO - so why?

[Jackstar]

Just read the papers why on holidays, cant beleive the alternative ticket want to change the "goal posts" .

[Tiger Spirit]

Just read the papers why on holidays, cant beleive the alternative ticket want to change the "goal posts" .

I can believe it Jackstar.  Because they've shown all along that they are in it for themselves and not the Richmond Football Club or its members.  For them to want the constitution changed in this way is testament to their self-interest in this whole saga.

I agree that the Constitution needs to evolve with the times, but not just to suit those who want to take over the Club, as this alternative ticket seems hellbent on wanting to do.  I wish they'd knick off out of our footy club and stop embarrassing RFC with their total incompetence. 

Anything wrong with nominating for the Board, via an election, as they do at most Clubs?   

Knick off the lot of ya. 

[mightytiges]

When does all this madness come to a head? With Casey on holidays, have the remaining board members met up or will they wait until Casey returns?

[Jackstar]

Interesting times ahead.

[mightytiges]

Interesting times ahead.

Me thinks a PM is in order lol 

It must be close to knowing what is happening next. It would be nice if us members were told  .

[mightytiges]

Tiger rebels face uncertain election
19 October 2004   
Herald Sun
Mark Stevens

THE Richmond rebel ticket has been stymied in its bid for an "us against them" election at the club's December annual general meeting.

Would-be president Charles Macek and his group were hoping to give the members a simple choice between the rebels and president Clinton Casey's board, but the constitution does not allow for a straight-out fight.

Under the rules, any candidates -- including those from outside the two groups -- are thrown together on the betting form and listed alphabetically.

That means a poll at the annual general meeting -- likely to be on December 21 -- could result in a board made up of a mixture of Macek and Casey's men.

Macek yesterday made it clear that would be an unpalatable outcome, saying the group would meet this week to discuss other options to sweep to power.

"We had read the constitution. The club's advice is consistent with the constitution," Macek said.

"We were hoping there may be some flexibility in the way it would operate.

"I don't see it as a major hurdle or hiccup at all -- just a clarification."

Macek said his group would discuss a "number of possible scenarios".

"It's not necessarily a major setback because the alternative to an AGM is an extraordinary general meeting," Macek said.

"In an EGM you can, through the way you present resolutions, achieve a desired outcome.

"But that, of course, involves an extra meeting. That is not necessarily desirable because it does involve extra expense."

Asked if an EGM was more likely, Macek said: "I'm not going to speculate on what we do . . . it's something we need to discuss and consider."

Macek's group has also not given up hope of achieving a "negotiated settlement" with the Casey board.

"In recent times he (Casey) has said publicly he wouldn't be prepared to do that with the current group.

"Whether he's changed his view, one wouldn't know."

Casey returns from an overseas trip on Friday.
 
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,11113294%255E20322,00.html

[mightytiges]

I must be missing something here as IMO the RFC constitution is fairly straightforward in what can and/or can't be done. The alternative ticket don't seem to understand it though. On Sept 28 the alternative ticket were demanding the whole board resign otherwise they would definitely force a EGM despite a forced whole board resignation not being allowed under the constitution. Then it was the alternative ticket wanting a senate style ticket vote which again is not allowed. Now it's "we need to discuss and consider" whether to have a EGM when 3 weeks ago they said they would organize a petition and force one. Make up your minds for crying out loud .

ps. I thought Casey was back today?