Trouble is brewing

[WilliamPowell]

I know I rave on, but I'll keep saying it until there's no need to.

I know I rave on as well - I keep saying the same things over and over and have been for months but the alternative ticket offer nothing.

All they seem to give us is scare mongering. They point fingers, they criticise, they carry on through the media, they jump up and down like 5 year olds in a school yard if they don't get there own way and yet they present nothing on how they intend to fix things.

If I wanted scare mongering ... well there is a Federal Election campaign going on...I can get it from there    

[WilliamPowell]

Ron - you're gonna start to think TS & I are some tag team.

But you actuallt raise some interesitng points.....

You have been listening to Cameron  That  says to me that it's ok to stuff the plan and the budget so long as you don't let it get any worse once you discover the mess. The same people who had "no blow out" were responsible for the huge loss or was it somebody else?

Budgets - one of my favourite topics. The RFC financial years runs from 1st Nov to 31st October. Therefore budgets are signed off by the board in August/September. Budgets would be put together by the Clubs Adminstration (CEO, dept heads etc) the board approves the budget (this is what happens at most companies). If we go back to August/September of 2003 when this budgets were approved let's look at who made up that board.

Casey
Turner
Cameron
March
Jewell
Lord
Daddo
Schwab 
Welsh 

Now these are the fellows that OK'd these budgets - so lets point the finger at all of them. Not meeting revenue forecasts is what has cost us and the blame for that lies not just at board level for approving the unacheivable but also the administration for forcasting the impossible.

As to when this mess was discovered - it was early this year and believe me if they had let things continue the way it was then we wouldn't be losing $2.2 million.

"Give Otto what he wants"

Schwab didn't say that - he talked generally about it being galling to supporters that RFC was not able to pay market rates because they were in a financial mess. When pushed by KB he said it was not appropriate to discuss individual players. My Jimmy Olsen style report on the whole interview is available at no charge on another thread.

Read your report Ron - good work 

I think Brendan is living in "Noddyland" on this one to be honest. I think a good number of supporters are relived that we are no longer be dictated to by players and player managers. Further, I reckon good number are ecstatic that the days of the Club over paying and throwing good money after bad for players seems to be finally over.

[1980]

This is all crap !
If there is only three spots up why dont Schwab , Macek and Welsh stand for election again see what happens. Betcha they dont ,
See if they can assist this football club, something they couldnt to do the first time as they didnt get there way and went sooking.
Fair dinkum, they are three ordinary individuals

Jackstar, this is an entire distortion of the facts.

Macek stepped aside when the new board came in ie when Casey was elected. He wanted to stay on the board, but acknowledged the new presidents wish for him to leave and for new blood to be brought in.

And that's the way it should be done. I note that the current president has decided to put himself before the club, and refuses to do the same.

Regardless, the current president has had 5 years. The club is further back today than it was 5 years ago both financially and on the field. Not even you can argue against that. Those are the facts. Based on the 5 year record of Clinton Casey, and 5 years is long enough to create success, he is a failure and should step aside.

Appointing Terry Wallace as coach does not in any way wipe away his 5 year record.

The other 2, left the board because it wasnt operating as a board. It was rubber stamping decisions made by the pres, they had no insight into decisions and appointments, and more importantly finances. That is their claim anyway. For a guy claiming that you also sit on boards, you should know how dangerous it is to sit on a board and have no access to key company info. Unless you sit on boards like Enron, HIH and OneTel that is.

As far as I'm concerned, I have a long memory. Swab and co can claim all they like that Casey was not accountable to his board, so they left, but what I care about, is that Clinton Casey was unaccountable to his members. Until these challenges came about, we had no idea what the hell was going on at Punt Rd. Casey was running the club as if it was his own little toy. Now he's got to go before the members and argue why they should persevere with him. And even if he wins, that is a great thing for the club.

[1980]

Whats even more amazing that supporters want to support a alternative ticket run by someone they dont know, Oh Boy are we in strife.
I have actually met him, I wouldnt give him the time of day. Personality plus he,s NOT

You had some credibility when you were making these comments about swab, but everything you've said about swab you're now saying about Macek.

Clearly, no matter who runs against Clinton Casey, you'll say the same.

I havent met either of them, but I know who is responsible for taking the club further back over the past 5 years than where it was 5 years ago.

Clinton Casey=wooden spoons & financial losses

[Tiger Spirit]

"It was known at Round 1 of this season that we were heading for a huge loss.  Despite that, there was no blow out on that figure."

You have been listening to Cameron  That  says to me that it's ok to stuff the plan and the budget so long as you don't let it get any worse once you discover the mess. The same people who had "no blow out" were responsible for the huge loss or was it somebody else?

And…

"Give Otto what he wants"

Schwab didn't say that - he talked generally about it being galling to supporters that RFC was not able to pay market rates because they were in a financial mess. When pushed by KB he said it was not appropriate to discuss individual players. My Jimmy Olsen style report on the whole interview is available at no charge on another thread.

regards

ps - I'm not necessarily supporting the Schwab group - just like to see some balance

No Jimmy Olsen style reporting on Cameron’s interview this morning then RonB?  Would be good to get a balanced view of that one, seeing as I would be incapable of doing that.

And anyway, what do you mean RonB?  This is balanced.  When they give us a reason to give them some credit they’ll get it. I wouldn’t hold my breath though.

[froars]

1980, i asked you once before - which you didn't answer - why you think Macek would be a good President.  See thread: http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=646.0

I have no idea if Macek would be a good leader either, but i can't support him at the moment, seeing as he's another one who's been there and done that before.  And of the rumours that I've heard before that he didn't get on with either Schwab or Welsh when there were on the board together before - thus i question why anything would be any different this time around.  And I do stress, they were only rumours, but rumours all the same i heard a couple of years before any of this started happening.

Would really appreciate your thoughts on Macek - and i'm not interested in any boards and stuff he's on - lots of these guys are on boards.  I want to know why he'd make a great RFC president in your opinion. 

[1980]

1980, i asked you once before - which you didn't answer - why you think Macek would be a good President.  See thread: http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=646.0

I have no idea if Macek would be a good leader either, but i can't support him at the moment, seeing as he's another one who's been there and done that before.  And of the rumours that I've heard before that he didn't get on with either Schwab or Welsh when there were on the board together before - thus i question why anything would be any different this time around.  And I do stress, they were only rumours, but rumours all the same i heard a couple of years before any of this started happening.

Would really appreciate your thoughts on Macek - and i'm not interested in any boards and stuff he's on - lots of these guys are on boards.  I want to know why he'd make a great RFC president in your opinion. 

Well froarsy, if we're going to start diggin up the past, there's a whole trail of posts by you on BF throughout the entire year demanding to know what was going on down at Punt Rd, and accusing Casey of being a dictator. And not too many argued with you cos you were right.

I dont think Macek is going to be a great president. I just want the current president to be held accountable for the past 5 years. 

There is a lot wrong with what's going on down at Punt Rd. And all of a sudden ppl think that Miller and Wallace will save us. They wont. For a club to be successful, everything needs to work, starting right at the top. And the Casey administration has proven over the past 5 years that it is a bunch of losers. In fact, it is the worst ever board to run the RFC. We can point fingers at the Ian Wilson board sending the club to the brink in the 80s, but they had also delivered presmierships to this club. Neville Crowe saved the club. Daphne got us financially strong and memberships flourished as well as corporate sponserships.

Clinto Casey has set the club back financially to where it was 20 years ago. $2m loss, something we havent had for a long time, and a wooden spoon.   

I am extremely disappointed that others didnt run. There's alot of quality Richmond ppl around that should have put their hands up but didnt. If its Macek, so be it. At least we wont be losing money with him running things.   

[1980]

1980, i asked you once before - which you didn't answer - why you think Macek would be a good President.  See thread: http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=646.0

I have no idea if Macek would be a good leader either, but i can't support him at the moment, seeing as he's another one who's been there and done that before.  And of the rumours that I've heard before that he didn't get on with either Schwab or Welsh when there were on the board together before - thus i question why anything would be any different this time around.  And I do stress, they were only rumours, but rumours all the same i heard a couple of years before any of this started happening.

Would really appreciate your thoughts on Macek - and i'm not interested in any boards and stuff he's on - lots of these guys are on boards.  I want to know why he'd make a great RFC president in your opinion. 

Well froarsy, if we're going to start diggin up the past, there's a whole trail of posts by you on BF throughout the entire year demanding to know what was going on down at Punt Rd, and accusing Casey of being a dictator. And not too many argued with you cos you were right.

I dont think Macek is going to be a great president. I just want the current president to be held accountable for the past 5 years.  

There is a lot wrong with what's going on down at Punt Rd. And all of a sudden ppl think that Miller and Wallace will save us. They wont. For a club to be successful, everything needs to work, starting right at the top. And the Casey administration has proven over the past 5 years that it is a bunch of losers. In fact, it is the worst ever board to run the RFC. We can point fingers at the Ian Wilson board sending the club to the brink in the 80s, but they had also delivered presmierships to this club. Neville Crowe saved the club. Daphne got us financially strong and memberships flourished as well as corporate sponserships.

Clinto Casey has set the club back financially to where it was 20 years ago. $2m loss, something we havent had for a long time, and a wooden spoon.  

I am extremely disappointed that others didnt run. There's alot of quality Richmond ppl around that should have put their hands up but didnt. If its Macek, so be it. At least we wont be losing money with him running things.  

[froars]

I'm not voting for Casey if I get the choice of candidates - what's your point there, 1980.  I have never supported the guy and i never will as an individual.  When did i say i would?  But if it is a case of voting against one ticket and the other ticket, i will have to choose Casey's based on the fact that there are four guys who have been there before as i said in my last post - and based on the fact that Schwab and Welsh allegedly wanted Macek off the board the last time he was on.  I need to be really convinced to vote for Macek if i get a chance to vote for the individuals - and so far i'm not.  But i hear a lot a hoopla, as if he's the great saviour - he had his chance when he was last on the board, and as i said before, everyone 'ALLEGEDLY" thought he stunk!

[1980]

Well you're entitled to your opinion, and your vote.

But if you apllied as much scrutiny to Casey over the past 5 years, as you are to Macek and the rest, you'd probably end up where I sit 

[froars]

I'll get back to you 1980 - so flat out here - but i'm not criticising you.  Like you, i want info on all the candidates, what they can offer, what they've done in the past.  That's why i think it's so important to not vote along ticket lines, so we can actually vote in the best candidates.  It appears so far, we will not be given that opportunity and that is what is peeing me off most.  If we did vote along those lilnes, Casey, Schwab ,Welsh and Macek wouldn't have a snowball's if i had my say. But as it is at the moment, for me, Casey gets the nod.

[Jackstar]

Oh boy
Neither party are  any good.

[mightytiges]

If we did vote along those lilnes [ed. individually], Casey, Schwab ,Welsh and Macek wouldn't have a snowball's if i had my say.

I'm in the same boat as froars. Please no failed ex-board members!

The main problem I have with all of them is although they may great wraps as businessmen in their respective fields outside the Club, they have demonstrated over time in past and current positions on the board that they have very little and inadequate understanding of the RFC's core business - football - to be board members. They continually overrated us and hence expected unrealistic results that we continually and obviously failed to achieve (that is changing). They were all on boards that made promises of major changes that never eventuated (until now). They went for quick fixes because they caved in to outside influences that were as niave about running a modern footy club as they were (until now). Those who were and want to be on the board due to their footy experience haven't played football for 20 years and before the modern footy environment and its pressures existed. They show(ed) no understanding of the key aspects of modern footy - attracting a top CEO, attracting a top coach, recruiting top young players via the draft, having a TPP that rewards individual performances realistically yet provides team depth - until now (despite the jury still being out in some regards as time will tell).

Finanically we were better off 5 years ago but IMO we were worse off on-field. No one wanted to coach us because the coach solely got the blame for the mess the Club was in so we ended up with Danny by default. We believed were weren't as bad as we were and rewarded our core players with even bigger contracts despite not making the finals in 4 years and finishing 13th. Our most consistent player in Cambo wanted to go to the Roos because he thought the Club was a joke and had no faith in the people running it at that time (as opposed to Otto who is leaving for $). Richmond has been a basket case for 20+ years not just the last 5!  

As for Schwab, he clearly said yesterday he would pay Otto his "market value". Well market value is overpriced b/w $400-500K based on the numbers bandied around by the Cats, Roos and Swans.

 
Oh boy
 
Neither party are any good.

Sadly so true 

[Tiger Spirit]

Well said MT.

Maybe neither party is any good, but we may have to decide between them who will take us into the futrue.

What I don’t understand is how we are ever going to move out of the past and into the future if all we do is dig up dirt on either party.

They are both flawed and probably as bad as one another, if we really get down to it.  But what good would any of that do?

In the event that one of these parties, or a combination of the two, is going to play a part on the RFC Board, then the only way I can see out of this is to determine who has the capacity and ability to take us into the future.  Clearly, that's how you think MT.

The fact that people stuffed up in the past isn’t reason enough to suggest they are incapable of taking us forward, is it?  Especially if they show the ability to change and get into action to quickly and effectively get things done.

However, if all they do is fumble and bumble their way through the whole process of launching their attack and in the process cause more turmoil than is absolutely necessary, then you have to question their motives and ability to get things done.  Maybe I have the blinkers on here, but wouldn’t you question that?

From the outset, I have been opposed to the alternative ticket, mainly because they chose this course of action to begin with.  If I appear bias it is because this is a divisive way of going about things and causes disruption that RFC doesn’t need now or at any time.  It is the way we have resolved issues in the past and we should know by now that it resolves absolutely nothing, so I am against it.  And since Schwab and co began their campaign, they have done nothing to suggest they are a viable alternative.  If anything, they have demonstrated the opposite.

I don’t see how a decision can be reached by determining who has committed the least number of sins, because that’s never going to help us in the future.  But their ability to bring about change and make things happen, quickly and effectively can.

[froars]

The fact that people stuffed up in the past isn’t reason enough to suggest they are incapable of taking us forward, is it?  Especially if they show the ability to change and get into action to quickly and effectively get things done.

A good start would be to tell us what things they would do differently than was done in the past.  I can't imagine they'd have kept Frawley and not appointed Wallace.  I can't imagine they wouldn't have appointed Miller.  I can't imagine they would have given Ottens his money - or would they?  Would they have sacked Frawley mid contract and done the Richmond thing as we've done for so long in the past.  If Casey has done anything, he has managed to bring back a little bit of credibility when it comes to sacking coaches, and maybe that's one of the reasons we got Wallace.  He saw the support Frawley got and thought, well, at least i'll be backed from the top. 

Ah, but two of them were on the board when these decisions and good things happened.  But they were also there when our finances started going arsse up.  Can't have it both ways.  Just wanna know what they would have done differently, and if Casey was such an authoritarian, then maybe he should take credit for the good things, seeing as he is being discredited with all the bad things that are happening.

PS: Can anyone tell me how much of the $2mil loss was due to poker machine revenue going down as a result of the Vic govt's decision to ban smoking?