Trouble is brewing

[mightytiges]

2004 has been one of the Club's low ebbs but it's hardly a "crisis". The past month would have to be one of the most controlled transitions RFC has ever witnessed. Hardly a sign of a Club in crisis! Interesting that Caro forgot to mention the new CEO, new coach in Wallace + new footy department, a business plan approved by he AFL and top draft picks to come under Miller's and Wallace's stewardship. One of the reasons Wallace chose us was because we were stable unlike his old Club which "is" in crisis. We can all twist the situation the Club is in to make it sound better or worse than it is.

It's not a case of "handing over the baton" to another group. It's more like handing it back to the past with Schwab and Welsh leading this other group. Credit to Sharon for deciding to run for the board but it's the head of this alternative ticket that stinks not it's tail.

The last half of Caro's article about the pettiness over the books just shows we're already in election mode with both sides trying to score a political advantage.   

the financial position of the club was "the issue at the heart of any election for a new board".

Yeah sure! That's why Daphne stepped down with $ to spare and with the Club having 29,000 members Brendan . Remember you were on the board back then as well.

No doubt the financial health of the Club is very important but on-field performance is what football club boards live and die by (Don Scott isn't challenging at the Hawks because of their financial situation). And like Clinton you Brendan and Welsh as former board members agreed to ridiculous decisions for 5 years that kept us as the rabble footy side we have been for the past 20.

The main issue IMHO is who'll be the best nine people to run the Club into 2005 and beyond in all areas. Sadly due to their leaders' past efforts neither side stacks up IMO.

[Jackstar]

Sharon Hall, softballer.
We have had ""22 soft ballers "" run around all year.
Now we might get one  on the board.
Tigers need more grunt not soft balls 

[WilliamPowell]

Woman lawyer on Tiger ticket

By Caroline Wilson

realfooty.theage.com.au
September 7, 2004

Wonderful to see Caro back from Greece writing about the Tigers - and catching up with her mate 

[froars]

Beware of woman lawyer who swings a bat lol
Hang on, she could be handy.
Still, i hate all this ticket stuff.  Why should i vote for a ticket in which i can't stand half of the contenders - on both sides.
If these people want to get in at the club, why can't they just stand as Independents - in fact, why can't all of them.
It just says to me there's one group within the club fighting against each other - and who needs that?
If you've got something to offer the club, nominate, but why factions?

[Tiger Spirit]

We really are clutching at straws with this article, trying to make it sound like things are really up and moving with this ticket.  But all it really serves to do is strengthen the view that Schwab and co are as lightweight as some of us think they are and have no idea when it comes to playing the political game.

They really are out of their League.  Maybe they should try the little league.

What I want to know is, how does having a female Board member enhance this ticket’s position any more than if it was a credible male?  As long as it is someone who can do the job, what difference does it effectively make?

I can’t take any of these people seriously, because if any of them had the best interests of the Club at heart then they would nominate and get voted in, like most people do at other Clubs.

That they could actually believe they are doing the right thing by the Club is absolutely staggering.  They tell the Club that it is not being run properly and then try to overthrow the current Board, thereby making the Club look like a rabble.  So who is the real rabble here?

The Club has had ample opportunity, over the last five years, to absolutely cave in.  And I thought several times we were about to self-destruct, but it never happened.

The fact that factions seem to be appearing to unseat the current Board, heavily laden with those who have been there in the past, perhaps suggest that the non contributors and those who weren’t prepared to play the ‘team game’ are no longer there for a very good reason.

As shown by their methods, these people on rival tickets are divisive and simply in it for themselves and can only keep Richmond in its old ways.  It has never been the way to go about things and still isn't.

[2JD]

I gree froars, you might get one or two that know what they are doing, the rest wont have a clue. Why cant we build a team of the best from everyone. Or would that be too much like team work and having a game plan

[WilliamPowell]

Schwab and his group has lost patience with Casey, believing the beleaguered president has failed to honour the compromise reached in order to allow the club to secure a new coach.

Blah blah.... I just wont to go on record as saying I have lost all patience with Schwab and his ticket

Not only has Casey refused to unconditionally make the Richmond books available to Humphris, he has cancelled at least two meetings with the challengers.

  Staggering....

Not only that Clinton has refused to offer them a cup a coffee at any upcoming meetings - anyone for tea

With the Richmond board meeting tonight for the last time before Casey heads overseas on Thursday for a month, Schwab and his ticket now regard a total spill as the inevitable conclusion to the club's political, financial and football crisis, which has led to three board members resigning this year, the sacking of CEO Ian Campbell, a projected loss of $2.4 million and a wooden spoon.

Really is that what has happened in 2004- I didn't know that. Batton down the hatches

The board believes Schwab's request for an "smooth transition" is actually a request for a complete surrender.

Really - would never have guessed - Caro this is some of your best work - pass the scones

Schwab said last night that the refusal to hand over the financial information unless there was a signed confidentiality agreement was "ridiculous."

Why is it ridiculous? But then again Brendan knows a lot about the ridiculous 

He said the financial position of the club was "the issue at the heart of any election for a new board".

This is a stupid statement but then again - it shouldn't surprise.  "Any election"??? How many is any? This election - yes but "any" - no

Schwab has made a few stupid statments over the last 6 months.


Anyone for a latte?

[WilliamPowell]

They really are out of their League.  Maybe they should try the little league.

Batter up

What I want to know is, how does having a female Board member enhance this ticket’s position any more than if it was a credible male?  As long as it is someone who can do the job, what difference does it effectively make?

I've been thinking the same thing myself TS - any ticket should be made up of those with the best credentials to help the club - not tokens.

Still, i hate all this ticket stuff. Why should i vote for a ticket in which i can't stand half of the contenders - on both sides.
If these people want to get in at the club, why can't they just stand as Independents - in fact, why can't all of them.
It just says to me there's one group within the club fighting against each other - and who needs that?
If you've got something to offer the club, nominate, but why factions?

We live in a democracy so therefore, I believe that you should and would be allowed to vote the individuals you want to.

Remember the last Carlton election when they booted out big Jack? There were 2 tickets but people from form Jack's ticket (Kernahan and Williams) ended up on Collo's board. Same thing could happen with us and it would be up to those elected to work together.

[1980]

We really are clutching at straws with this article, trying to make it sound like things are really up and moving with this ticket.  But all it really serves to do is strengthen the view that Schwab and co are as lightweight as some of us think they are and have no idea when it comes to playing the political game.

They really are out of their League.  Maybe they should try the little league.

What I want to know is, how does having a female Board member enhance this ticket’s position any more than if it was a credible male?  As long as it is someone who can do the job, what difference does it effectively make?

I can’t take any of these people seriously, because if any of them had the best interests of the Club at heart then they would nominate and get voted in, like most people do at other Clubs.

That they could actually believe they are doing the right thing by the Club is absolutely staggering.  They tell the Club that it is not being run properly and then try to overthrow the current Board, thereby making the Club look like a rabble.  So who is the real rabble here?

The Club has had ample opportunity, over the last five years, to absolutely cave in.  And I thought several times we were about to self-destruct, but it never happened.

The fact that factions seem to be appearing to unseat the current Board, heavily laden with those who have been there in the past, perhaps suggest that the non contributors and those who weren’t prepared to play the ‘team game’ are no longer there for a very good reason.

As shown by their methods, these people on rival tickets are divisive and simply in it for themselves and can only keep Richmond in its old ways.  It has never been the way to go about things and still isn't.

TS you're right on 2 counts. Yes this article is clutching at straws and yes swab's ticket is made of little league stuff.

But so is Caseys. Anthony Mitten, WTF?

Swab is not the only one making the club look like a rabble. It already was and is. Finishing last, losing $2m and appointing a halfwit CEO without even interviewing him makes it a rabble. Swab is just making it look more like a rabble.

There are two parties here squabbling. The incumbents and the challengers. How you can be pi$$d off with just one of the sides is beyond me. They both suck. Just because Swab underwhelms you doesnt mean Casey should escape criticism for running the club into the ground and being a crap president.

[Puntroadroar]

Casey has my vote

Schwab can go and get @#$%^&

and then when Rex runs for presidency then

Casey can follow Schwab... until then leave the club alone! 

[1980]

Casey has my vote

Schwab can go and get @#$%^&

and then when Rex runs for presidency then

Casey can follow Schwab... until then leave the club alone! 

you're dreaming about Rex.

and you were too quick to change your name from coach required. It will be pres required in 12 months.

[mightytiges]

I'm not sure how the elected terms will be sorted out given that all nine positions on the board are up for grabs all at once? I think your term lasts as long as whoever you took over from had left running but I'm not sure and I'm not sure how they'll work that out  ???.

They were normally spread out so 3 different board positions came up for election each year with each successful candidate serving 3 year terms. So over a 3 year cycle all positions were elected upon or just reinstated if there were no other challengers.

In any case, whoever wins the election in December could claim they have a 3 year mandate from members .

[Tiger Spirit]

the financial position of the club was "the issue at the heart of any election for a new board".

No doubt the financial health of the Club is very important but on-field performance is what football club boards live and die by

Spot on MT.  Comments like this show just how out of touch with members and supporters Schwab and his mates really are and the longer this goes on the less convinced about them I become.

We all want our own Club to be successful, but when supporters get upset, it’s generally because of how the team is going, not how the bank balance looks.  Whether we have millions in the bank or $1.20 makes not a lot of difference to most supporters, as long as we have a Club to support.  And I don’t remember reading any posts on OER, on a Monday, after a game, where supporters vented their frustration that our bank balance was cactus and totally ignored whether we had won or lost that weekend.

Schwab has gone on about the financial crisis at RFC.  But the AFL would be nuts if they let a Club like Richmond disappear, especially when they offer assistance to other Clubs with a smaller supporter base.  It wouldn’t make sense if they let that happen.  Obviously every Club is monitored to ensure things are running as they should and if the AFL don’t have an issue with how things are being run then I’m not sure what guru Schwab has to complain about.

Is it any wonder RFC has gone nowhere over the past few decades when it’s people like this who have been on the Board and all they have ever been concerned about is keeping the finances in check.  Just in case any one needs reminding, this is a footy club, not a financial institution.  We want success on the field, first, second, third and last.

Any administration that knows what a footy club is all about can quickly get its act together.

In the past, RFC has focused most of its energies on balancing the books, at the expense of the football department.  The consistent lack of success that approach brought has meant constant upheaval and turmoil.

For the first time in a long while, we now seem to be in a reasonable position to start to put together a competitive team out on the ground.

From what they have consistently shown throughout this campaign, Schwab and co couldn’t lead that.  They would just give us more of what we’ve had.

[WilliamPowell]

There are two parties here squabbling. The incumbents and the challengers. How you can be pi$$d off with just one of the sides is beyond me. They both suck. Just because Swab underwhelms you doesnt mean Casey should escape criticism for running the club into the ground and being a crap president.

And that is the biggest problem 1980 - there are only 2 parties and from the 2 we have, each of us has to make a choice. Do we go with what we have or go with those who have been part of the decision making process, walked away and now want to come back.

Personally I ticked off with Casey and his board because we are going to lose $2 million this year - which means we will be in debt (not by $ 2m but in debt none the less) for the first time in a number of years. However, Casey and his board have not walked away - they have put together a business plan (that has the backing of the AFL) that will claw us out of this mess we are in. One of the most pleasing part of this plan for my view point is finally thay are not going to rely on the teams on field performance to try and make a profit. For far to long gate receipts and the hope the team is going to perfrom has dominated the Clubs thinking. Whether, people want to acknowledge it or not Brendan Schwab and Peter Welsh were members of the boards that used this archaic thinking. And it has cost us.

Then we have Schwab who continues to tell us nothing new but what we already know. He tells us the figures are bad - we know it. He has told us that "we will need strong medicine" but hasn't explained what the storng medicine is going to be except hinting that it may involve cost cutting. the cost cutting has already started. So it appears he constantly tells us what we arleady know. The Schwab ticket has offered nothing in terms of policy or strategies all they do is offer up the same old same old - nothing new. Oops I tell a lie - they offer us a female on their ticket as if to say here's a good reason to vote for us. What a surprise it was that one of the first articles from Caro on her return from Greece was the latest instalment in the "Schwab take-over". As I said nothing new just the same old same old.

So we have 2 choices.

BG25, said it perfectly the other day - Casey's money and ego wont let the Tigers fail. Can Schwab offer us the same guarantees - the answer is NO and as a result  with the 2 choices available Casey gets my vote.

 

[Tiger Spirit]

Just because Swab underwhelms you doesnt mean Casey should escape criticism for running the club into the ground and being a crap president.

I don’t have any angst towards Casey.  Mainly because, even if he has caused or helped cause the mess we’re in, for the first time we actually need to get into action and do something about it.

It also shows that he has actually gone out to make things happen.  With all the conservatism of previous administrations at RFC, nothing has ever been in such a state that drastic changes have been seen as urgent or necessary.  Now, because everything seems in such an uproar, something needs to happen.  I know that’s probably an unusual way to look at things, but it’s better than neither going backwards nor forwards, year after year.

And I would rather someone who takes some action to change things, rather than sit back and do nothing, even if things don’t go as you would like.  If they know what they are doing they can straighten things up.  But unless we take some risks then we’ll just stay where we are.  And I don’t want to go back to those conservative days, which Schwab would surely bring.

Nothing has been proven that anything underhanded has happened with our finances.  So I can only look at what has happened and is happening with the current administration and compare it to what Schwab offers, which isn’t much, if anything.