News President Announcement 4pm today

[Crawfthorn]

Well done Jeff, as a departing stance on behalf of the club you have excelled in upholding the values which the HFC holds dear.

Andrew Newbold first agenda item at his first HFC board meeting as president should be to strip Geoff Lord of his Life Membership. We don't need self-serving ego maniacs anywhere near the club.

 

[eldorado]

Somewhere out there, Andy Maher is saying 'whooshka!"

 

[Crawfthorn]

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

What saddens me about this whole fiasco is that the Kennett-led board had great ideals in limiting the tenure of directors so that the board could be re-invigorated with new blood, fresh with ideas and passion.

That 'Lord's folly' fully exploited the constitution, will no doubt see the criteria for nomination tightened alongside the fact that members will feel obligated to not put such a financial impost on the club by running against the board's candidate unless the situation was diabolical or they were prepared to 'pay their way'.

In effect, we are in danger of becoming a gentleman's club - where the baton is only passed between a select few.

It's a can of worms that never needed opening.

And all for one man's ego - that seriously pisses me off.

Gentleman's club? Get your hand off it. Lord had zero credibility and never proposed a legimiate alternative to what has been a stable and well managed board. And what's wrong with passing the baton to a member of the board who has played a big role in the club's current success? Its been such a disaster at other clubs, like, hmmm, Geelong post Frank Costa.

 

[TAITA]

Gentleman's club? Get your hand off it. Lord had zero credibility and never proposed a legimiate alternative to what has been a stable and well managed board. And what's wrong with passing the baton to a member of the board who has played a big role in the club's current success? Its been such a disaster at other clubs, like, hmmm, Geelong post Frank Costa.

Read it again.

 

[Longhorn]

At the AGM someone needs to propose a motion from the floor that Lord be stripped of his Life Membership. Vote on it.

 

[crazywildhorse]

So add 60k to the other ??? he screwed the club over for. Seriously, it seems like he just wanted to screw the Hawks one more time.

 

[bards]

So add 60k to the other ??? he screwed the club over for. Seriously, it seems like he just wanted to screw the Hawks one more time.

We are allowed to vote on things at the AGM without the need for a $60,000 presidential style election.

However, as much as I disagree with Geoff Lord running, I would not be voting to remove his life membership (if thats even possible under our constitution).

 

[spudmaster]

Gentleman's club? Get your hand off it. Lord had zero credibility and never proposed a legimiate alternative to what has been a stable and well managed board. And what's wrong with passing the baton to a member of the board who has played a big role in the club's current success? Its been such a disaster at other clubs, like, hmmm, Geelong post Frank Costa.

TAITA was simply saying that because of the actions of Geoff Lord, to prevent this situation arising in the future and costing the club financially, the restrictions to run may be tightened which has the potential to develop into a 'gentlemans club' because the more stringent restrictions.

He was not saying that the club currently is a gentlemans club.

 

[Charchi]

GL is perfectly entitled to nominate for President of HFC just like any of us are, and probably on seeing the way the numbers are going he is perfectly entitled to withdraw.

Democracy has a price and the constitution of the club allows it.

If you don't like it, propose a motion to change the constitution so that unless you pay for it yourself that you cannot run for a board position. The effect of which will be to limit who can nominate for a board position and ensure it definitely becomes a club within a club.

I was told several months ago by a senior HFC official that unless you are on side with JK there was no hope of "an outsider" being on the board which will be no surprise to anyone.

 

[Crawfthorn]

Read it again.

I understand what your saying, that its a nail in the coffin for democratic process of electing our board, and I disagree. My point was simply that Lord was never a credible alternative to the current administration and in turn, I don't have a problem with us prompting from within when we're in a stable position. Now if that changes and our members become frustrated or disillusioned with the direction of the current board, I'm simply saying that what Jeff's done hasn't created any further barriers for a credible alternative ticket running, and winning.

 

[savagelunchbox]

Bloody Oath Jeff. Respect to Jeff for not holding back. And even more respect to the board for not being blackmailed.

Over the last couple of weeks, Geoff Lord has clearly started to reconsider his candidacy. In a discussion with Andrew Newbold he offered to withdraw from the contest if he was given a Board position or was appointed to head a committee at the Club. As you can imagine, such demands were inappropriate and rejected.

 

[The BIG X]

Totally shocked that Lord received that many votes !
What were those people thinking ? Or were they ?[/quote]


Agree with your thoughts hfc70 - but that's democracy. What a farce from Lord.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

If you don't like it, propose a motion to change the constitution so that unless you pay for it yourself that you cannot run for a board position. The effect of which will be to limit who can nominate for a board position and ensure it definitely becomes a club within a club.

Quite simple really. The Hawthorn FC is no longer the local club in the area, it's a multi-billion dollar business on a national scale. Jeff Kennett is 100% correct when he continues to remind us that in order to survive we must continue to grow. We must continue to return handsome operating profits.

One or two shady deals and our future could suddenly become tenuous, rather than assured as it is now. We've already seen how self-serving Presidents can almost bring the club to its' knees.

Anyone seeking election to the office of President must surely be a member of the club, and must surely have served an apprenticeship in sports management. But mostly, that person must be able to support their own nomination rather than expect club members to pay for it.

If they are unwilling, or unable to do that, then they are unsuitable to hold the highest office for the greatest football club in Australia. Our constitution must be altered to never allowing this farce to happen again.

Democracy is one thing, bad business practices are another.

 

[Bayer_]

I agree, if there's discretion under our constitution, he should be stripped of life membership. To not pay for the election (or a membership), then to pull out when most of the costs are sunk, is horrendously selfish.

Whilst it is the right of any member to run for president, the substance of what the man has done is detrimental to our club, and we have the right to expel undesirables.

If Geoff Lord doesn't make arrangements to reimburse our members' funds, I will fully support any motion to strip him of his life membership (Jeff will still be presiding at the upcoming meeting, yes?).

I'll have to say though, Jeff's letter certainly tells us we have a new president who bleeds brown and gold. Let's all give him a warm welcome to the presidency come the AGM.

 

[Hawker4Life]

Anyone seeking election to the office of President must surely be a member of the club, and must surely have served an apprenticeship in sports management.

That rules Kennett out.

 

[Spook]

Thanks for wasting countless thousands of members' dollars, Geoff.

oh Lord de Lord de Lord... what a w***er

 

[TAITA]

I understand what your saying, that its a nail in the coffin for democratic process of electing our board, and I disagree. My point was simply that Lord was never a credible alternative to the current administration and in turn, I don't have a problem with us prompting from within when we're in a stable position. Now if that changes and our members become frustrated or disillusioned with the direction of the current board, I'm simply saying that what Jeff's done hasn't created any further barriers for a credible alternative ticket running, and winning.

Okay - third try.

Either I am very poor at articulating or you are very poor at comprehending english and basic concepts, and how they work in the real world.

So here it is......

.......actually.........I can't even be ****ed explaining common sense.

If there is anyone else out there who cannot understand my original post please quote and sign up here and I will explain it all to you s-l-o-w-l-y tomorrow.

 

[Splodge15]

Pleased.

Relieved.

Unsurprised.

 

[Mojo]

I wanna hear from Brown Blood.

 

[Crawfthorn]

Okay - third try.

Either I am very poor at articulating or you are very poor at comprehending english and basic concepts, and how they work in the real world.

So here it is......

.......actually.........I can't even be ****ed explaining common sense.

If there is anyone else out there who cannot understand my original post please quote and sign up here and I will explain it all to you s-l-o-w-l-y tomorrow.

Yep, got you TAITA. I misread it as you commenting on Jeff's ego, not Lord's.

Apologies!

 

[TAITA]

Yep, got you TAITA. I misread it as you commenting on Jeff's ego, not Lord's.

Apologies!

Cheers brother.

 

[Brown Blood]

I wanna hear from Brown Blood.

What do you want to hear - as I have already posted I wasn't going to vote for lord.

 

[Goldnbrown]

What do you want to hear - as I have already posted I wasn't going to vote for lord.

No but you were a big supporter of him standing and making the board accountable and democracy. So tell us how you feel now that Geoff Lord has not made the board accountable, has not enhanced democracy but has wasted 50,000 of our money

 

[Hawker4Life]

No but you were a big supporter of him standing and making the board accountable and democracy. So tell us how you feel now that Geoff Lord has not made the board accountable, has not enhanced democracy but has wasted 50,000 of our money

What is your damage, dude? Brown Blood's earlier points still stand. In fact, he's pretty much the ongoing voice of logic here and it stuns me that people can't understand his comments, even when he breaks them down to primary school level.

Once again, people should stick to the facts. Kennett's memo is, as usual, filled with distorted information. The cost of the election is actually undeclared, and would certainly not be anywhere near the $50,000 of a full election. 90% of votes haven't even been returned and wont now require return postage. This would be a saving of at least $20k, not to mention all the other administrative procedures that now wont take place. The cost of the process is the cost of the process and I would bet that HFC is budgeting for an election every 3 years anyway.

Curiously, had newbold lost, would people be asking him to cover the cost? Not in the slightest.

As an after-thought: I find it sad that this election has been about one man: Kennett. He spoke over Newbold repeatedly, dominated the campaign with baseless character assassinations of anyone who disagreed or voiced an alternative, misused the HFC website for his own ambitions, and made a whole range of alleged and unchecked assertions that the astute minds here at BigFooty lapped up without question.

I will happily repeat earlier statements that I am glad he's gone.
And if you cant see how Kennett's behaviour has disgraced himself, then you're part of the problem.

 

[Brown Blood]

No but you were a big supporter of him standing and making the board accountable and democracy. So tell us how you feel now that Geoff Lord has not made the board accountable, has not enhanced democracy but has wasted 50,000 of our money

And I still am a supporter of board accountability, democracy and correct process which has been followed here.

The only issue with lord standing was the quality of the candidate which can be easily remedied by tightening up the requirements for a candidate to stand (and I am thinking more about number of members required to nominate not $$ required to put up).

So as a result I don't think the money has been wasted as all - if he wasn't allowed to stand the alternative would have been a far worse.