Trouble is brewing

[mightytiges]

KB said if you were in charge would you be able to stop Otto from leaving. Schwab didn't give a direct answer and went on about having a 3-5 plan.

Did he give any indication what the plan was MT?

Ronnie B's thread is all what Schwab said. The comment about the club blaming people who leave. Of course still no detail on what they would differently to what we have now (except of course caving in to Otto's manager's demands of big bucks just to keep him  )

The Alternative ticket - high on flairy-floss rhetoric, low on detail.

[RonBranton]

]

Ok then, if anyone can let me in on the big secret and please let me know why people would support the alternative ticket I’d appreciate it.  Because it’s got me absolutely stumped.

Tiger  I'll have a go for you - and excuse me if this is obvious stuff.

If you assume that the current board, or Casey in particular, has done a bad job, you might want to replace them/him. Normally you wouldn't get a chance to do this except by chipping away at 3 directors per year through an Annual General Meeting. Now that's not really affective or practical.

Often, when a board/president is unpopular or has performed badly, an alternative board/president puts itself up and asks for either a smooth take-over (as Casey achieved when he came in and as Eddie did at Collingwood) or an election where the current board/president refuses to walk and the alternative then offers themselves as a package. This is where we are at at RFC. We only have one alternative - it's not possible to pull these things out of a hat - you more or less have to live with what's on offer or stick with the current lot - there are no multiple choices.

I think that it's fair to say that most members are not happy with the current board or Casey. Some may think that it/he have moved in the right direction by appointing GM. TW and the new CEO, but generally the numbers and on field performance are an F. I think it's also fair to say that the current board are not united - we know for fact that Casey wants two of them off before they are due for re-election.

Now one has to consider if the alternative - as a whole - is better than the current board/president. The main criticism appears to be that too many of the "new" alternative have been there before, and they have no plan.

For what it's worth, a number of the alternative people seem to have left because of Casey's autocratic style - this seems to be a common theme. There is also disquiet regarding corporate governance - these are not the sort of things that people feel comfortable about expressing when they leave a club and maybe some of them used other reasons for leaving (not enough time, other priorities etc) in order to save the club from embarassment.

Brendan Schwab started the new group. He soon realized that he didn't have the credibility to pull it off - he went for Macek as alternative president leaving himself as the sort of "go to" man. They put together as strong a group as they could (many people won't committ to these things - eg Gale, Rex, KB  ) and have tried to get a cross section of abilities together.

The new group made a peace deal with Casey around July to ensure that we got a good coach and CEO but there appears to be a disagreement as to what else was specifically agreed upon. The new group now wants to use the scheduled AGM to have a vote for all 9 board places instead of the normal 3 and to do this they need the currrent 9 to resign and present themselves again.

I'm pretty sure this will happen.

You and all other members then must decide whether you prefer the new group (who wlil present as a whole) or want to stick with 9 others under Casey. (Casey may well produce his own group and it might be a simple choice between each group) 

The new group will surely present to the members their credentials and their plans or vision in mail outs and on websites prior to the AGM.


regards

[Jackstar]

Big problem is Ronnie that new group dont have plan.
The new group consisted of 2 ex board members who rang every ex-player and every tom, dick and harry to get a team together.the majority of people they contacted told them to get lost when they found out Schwab was involved.
And they eventually came up with an alternative ticket.

Mightytiges is 100% right, the debt we are in does not mean we are broke.
Some people think its doom and gloom, get real.

At least one thing that has occurred that the current board has corrected there mistakes. New Coach, New CEO, Football Manager etc.

[froars]

Ronnie, what if other people want to nominate as Independents?  You can't tell them they can't nominate because it's this ticket against another.

[Jackstar]

VOTE 1 FROARS

FROARS !

[froars]

VOTE 1 FROARS

I'll bring back pleasant Sunday mornings - waddya reckon - a vote winner 

[Jackstar]

At least you are one policy already ahead of anyone else

[RonBranton]

froars (maaaaate)

In a normal year with a normal AGM anyone can nominate, and I guess anyone can nominate this time, but they are going to be facing a group who wants to present as a block and who wants to take over.

It's an abnormal situation. I'm only assuming that Casey will go to the members and say "this is my group" . Whether you have to tick 9 boxes or one box will be up to those who decide the procedures for the vote, but the Schwab group will certainly be asking members to vote for a block.

Jackstar
Surely they will put out material which must include their vision. I've no doubt it was difficult for them to put a group together - few people want to commit to these things but lots like to snipe from the side (not you of course).

I'm keeping an open mind until I see their proposal - if they don't have one or it's not up to scratch then I'll stick with Casey - after all look where he's placed us after 5 years in the job  - hmm - maybe I should think about that  .

[1980]

The new group consisted of 2 ex board members who rang every ex-player and every tom, dick and harry to get a team together.the majority of people they contacted told them to get lost when they found out Schwab was involved.
And they eventually came up with an alternative ticket.

Casey did exactly the same thing, and came up with Anthony Mitten.

[1980]

And who hired Ian Campbell? It was CASEY.

And who hired Greg Miller - and it wasn't Brendan Schwab - that's right it was Casey.

Who hired steven Wright - who everone I have spoken to says is (so far) excellent?

And I remember listening to both Nathan Brown and more recently Terry Wallace speak of Casey in excellent terms, with both saying that the way he conducted himself and as a result how the Club conducted and presented itself was first rate.

You're kidding around with this post, right?

Steven Wright was selected after yet another debacle. The guy in Brisbane (Leighton something) was shoehorned by Casey, and his back was so crook he didnt even come to Melb for an interview. After Caro went public, the board decided they also wanted to interview him. Did you not read Casey's consistent comments how Mr Leighton was a perfect replacement as CEO? Listening to him is like watching a Seinfeld episode. Comical!!!

I'm pleased Brown speaks highly of Casey. So did Ottens before him.

When Greg Miller started in the job, he asked supporters to be patient for 3 years. Now its another 5. The jury is still out on Greg. And it was hardly a coup to get him to Tigerland. He was coaching the Hammerheads. There were no other clubs knocking on his door. All he's got to show right now is a wooden spoon.

We've all got great hope Greg is key to turning us around, but you cannot hold him up as the reason Clinton Casey is doing a good job.

And on the topic, who is to say if Greg Miller wasnt there, Kevin Sheedy wouldnt be coaching us next year.

[WilliamPowell]

You're kidding around with this post, right?

Nope serious actaully

I was trying to highlight that while it is easy to criticise Casey and blame him for everything - there have been correct decisions and more importantly he and his board have a plan in place that will get us out of the mire - the fact is the AFL have backed this business plan and this point is importnat to me.

Steven Wright was selected after yet another debacle. The guy in Brisbane (Leighton something) was shoehorned by Casey, and his back was so crook he didnt even come to Melb for an interview.

I am sorry but you are wrong here 1980. After being interviewed by Casey and I think Miller Leigthon Wood came to Melbourne and was interviewed a by the entire board.

After Caro went public, the board decided they also wanted to interview him. Did you not read Casey's consistent comments how Mr Leighton was a perfect replacement as CEO? Listening to him is like watching a Seinfeld episode. Comical!!!

Caro going public on anything to do with the RFC is comical - she has made it abundantly clear her views on the current administration and has proven that she cannot give a balanced report.  As for Casey's comments on Leighton Wood - I don't think saying we are going to interview him and before the interview saying his credentials look good is comical

We've all got great hope Greg is key to turning us around, but you cannot hold him up as the reason Clinton Casey is doing a good job.

Not for one minute will I hold Greg Miller as the only reason that Casey is doing a good job. He has made some horrendous mistakes but compared to the alternative - well ... they still have given me one reason to support them. I am still waiting on their plan.

The fact is it is because of Clinton Caey that Greg Miller is the RFC. I doubt very much that Terry Wallace would be our coach if it wasn't for Greg Miller.

The bottom line is currently I am faced with 2 choices - it the devil I know versus the circus clowns 

[Jackstar]

Hey 1990.
If there was a fair dinkum alternative, you would look at them. Unfortunately there isnt. Having past board members return isnt the answer.
Have you ever re-employed people who have left there job and want to return ? Ask yourself that.

Elections of the board is no good for anyone in this instance, as there is a good possibilty that you will have a split.That means back to square one ,as you vote in board members not parties !So we could have the same result as 2003/2004
Anyway, has anyone here ever been on a board? I have and the majority vote rules. If you disagree with a topic and your a minority , bad luck, thats how a board works.
Obvisously Welsh and Schwab dont know that !

[Tiger Spirit]

The new group will surely present to the members their credentials and their plans or vision in mail outs and on websites prior to the AGM.

Thanks for your efforts RonB.

That’s all well and good that we get the big bad meanies out of RFC, but then what?  What would life be like under this alternative ticket?  Perhaps we’ve already had a sneak preview and that’s my biggest concern.  Replacing one group of people with little idea with another that has absolutely no idea isn’t really the sort of change we’re after.  Is it?

If the way they have gone about this alternative ticket is anything to go by then I won’t expect too much from their plans.  Even if they have an amazing plan, I still wouldn’t have the confidence in them to be able to carry it out.

To now, all they have done is show that they are directionless, without vision and not even living in the real world.

The problem I have is that the reasons provided always seem to be fear-based and give me nothing to say that I should support the alternative ticket, because they are better placed and equipped to take RFC into the future.

In fact, because of the way they have handled things, they give the opposite impression.  They can’t operate in the environment they’re in so they up and leave.  If they’re not big enough to deal with Casey then how does anyone expect them to deal with the bigger egos they would be confronted with in the AFL world?

With these people at the helm, RFC will be like a walking door mat and just get walked all over and pushed around by the AFL and other League clubs.

If we’re going to throw out what’s already there then I want something that tells me they are a better option, otherwise why go through all this drama when things will be no better?  Where’s their capacity to create positive change when all they are doing is creating more division.  Which is something we’re badly in need of here at Richmond.  And if that’s their idea of positive change and creating unity then they can have it to themselves.

With the amount of time it’s taken for them to get anything happening and all the drama and upheaval they have created these past few months, it makes you wonder how serious they really are and where they’re priorities are.  Having such people in place, who give you no confidence that they know what a plan or direction even is and how to methodically carry it out, is massive cause for concern in my book.

I still don’t believe the alternative has any idea what they are doing and that they have what it takes to do any better than what is already there.  So I’ll take my chances with the current Board and know that there is an election every year where I can have my say.

If people like Schwab and co would stop interfering with the normal way of running our footy club then we wouldn’t need to be going through any of this.  They are just perpetuating the old Richmond and so they’ll never ever get my vote.

[Jackstar]

Tiger Spirit

[Jackstar]

Tiger Spirit, great post.