News ROTHSCHILD AND POWELL JOIN RICHMOND BOARD

[Goldust]

These are excellent appointments. Experienced private sector leaders, familiar with governance responsibilities, and with real commercial nous. Exactly the sort of people I want in place to ensure the ongoing financial viability of the club I love. Ex-footy players and naive amateurs with good intentions are a one way ticket to insolvency, irrelevance and eventually oblivion.

Don't like it? The club constitution ensures we will have our opportunity to vote them out and someone else in, if we so desire. The club constitution does not however cater to the whims of a disenfranchised minority who are determined to hang on to their misplaced angst at all costs.

Don't agree with the club constitution? There are mechanisms available to you to change it. Ranting against a perceived lack of board transparency on an anonymous online forum isn't one of them however, and it carries about as much weight as hashtag activism.

If you truly believe change is necessary, then stop waiting for the world to solve your problems for you and go do something about it. Stand for election on a platform of constitutional change, and put your case to the members. Too hard? You can just just keep whining like a child, if that's what you'd prefer.

While you're at it, maybe go find out what a board actually is and isn't responsible for. So much angst arising from so many incorrect assumptions could be avoided with just a little research.

Thanks Peggy!

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Why has the board ensured that we have a constitution where the members most often don't get a say who is on the board.

And does the constitution actually say that casual vacancies cannot be filled by an election - or just that they may be filled by appointment? Surely there is a way that the club could have included those two vacancies in the elections (if they had of resigned before the elections and not shortly after).

The members have to approve any changes to the constitution

We have the constitution we agreed to, the board forced nothing on us.

 

[JazMac]

These are excellent appointments. Experienced private sector leaders, familiar with governance responsibilities, and with real commercial nous. Exactly the sort of people I want in place to ensure the ongoing financial viability of the club I love. Ex-footy players and naive amateurs with good intentions are a one way ticket to insolvency, irrelevance and eventually oblivion.

Don't like it? The club constitution ensures we will have our opportunity to vote them out and someone else in, if we so desire. The club constitution does not however cater to the whims of a disenfranchised minority who are determined to hang on to their misplaced angst at all costs.

Don't agree with the club constitution? There are mechanisms available to you to change it. Ranting against a perceived lack of board transparency on an anonymous online forum isn't one of them however, and it carries about as much weight as hashtag activism.

If you truly believe change is necessary, then stop waiting for the world to solve your problems for you and go do something about it. Stand for election on a platform of constitutional change, and put your case to the members. Too hard? You can just just keep whining like a child, if that's what you'd prefer.

While you're at it, maybe go find out what a board actually is and isn't responsible for. So much angst arising from so many incorrect assumptions could be avoided with just a little research.

Are you a board member?

 

[tigs2010]

Enough of the rubbish talk and arguing. Can we all unanimously vote yes to the age old question of would you bang?

 

[Azzleberry]

cmon Azzle most of those 50k members are made up of pets and minors.
Agree with your point though when 6k or so voted. Appalling,but people were ECO .

4,686 members voted.. it was a 2 minute online poll.
Maybe 10% of them bothered to research the candidates beyond the 200 word bio... the other 90% went with what they liked reading or a name that sounded familiar..
Yet we want these same people to vote on every appointment...

 

[prodigy]

Now, I'm not going to claim to know the ins and outs of how our board operates. (I have a decent idea but not an extensive knowledge)
What irks me a little is, we just had an election, I didn't see these two names as options to vote in.
We then have two of our board members leave and casual vacancies open up. Subsequently, these two, with all due respect, relatively unknown people are appointed by the nominations committee.

Something doesn't smell right to me and according to some I'm one of the flower sniffers on this board that thinks everything is fine and dandy all the time.
I'm sure everything was done as per our constitution but people find loopholes in everything nowadays.

I could almost put my house on it, that at the next AGM, both of these board members will retain their positions because the vast majority of our member base simply won't vote, won't think to vote, nor care to vote because they wouldn't know any board members from a bar of soap. Mainly because we never see them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Goldust]

You are correct.. if you are one of the 4,686 members who chose to vote and you didn't vote for the status quo, you can complain!

All I'm saying is you can't blame the board, they give the members the opportunity and every time we either can't be bothered or just vote for the names that look familiar.... yet people want these same members to pick the board in its entirety and also fill casual vacancies!! You're kidding me, the club would be in the hands of people who know very little about the applicants and can't be bothered to think or do any research...

FYI- I voted for Dunne and Wallace, so I have a right to be annoyed

For the record, I believe ALL board vacancies should be subject to election.
If two disappear tomorrow, let's vote.
This is NOT The Senate.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

the problem is, it seems like more often than not the members aren't given the opportunity to have their say - as appointments happen just after AGMs and then the appointees have incumbency on their side when they are up for election 1 or more years later. Good way of giving the board the best chance of keeping the membership within their preferred clique. that is the appearance given.

Whether or not a casual vacancy is free before the agm is irrelevant

Free resigned before the agm. Do you know how many questions people asked at the agm re his replacement? Zero, not a one

If people cared, why no questions?

 

[TigerImposter]

And ill say it again for you - this is the process spelt out in the constitution. You dont like it, change the constitution because it has to be followed.

Last person elected by the members was dunne and ryan last year. Next?

They were given the position beforehand without facing election.
I think it was Rex who won his seat on merit without being gifted a free ticket.

 

[Azzleberry]

For the record, I believe ALL board vacancies should be subject to election.
If two disappear tomorrow, let's vote.
This is NOT The Senate.

And I am of the opinion that I'd prefer people who have a better knowledge of the applicants, their careers, what they will bring to the table and what is required at the table to make those decisions...
Not 4K people who (for the majority) have no idea about any of these people apart from what the club tells them in a 200 word bio.

 

[Sir_Loin]

These are excellent appointments. Experienced private sector leaders, familiar with governance responsibilities, and with real commercial nous. Exactly the sort of people I want in place to ensure the ongoing financial viability of the club I love. Ex-footy players and naive amateurs with good intentions are a one way ticket to insolvency, irrelevance and eventually oblivion.

Don't like it? The club constitution ensures we will have our opportunity to vote them out and someone else in, if we so desire. The club constitution does not however cater to the whims of a disenfranchised minority who are determined to hang on to their misplaced angst at all costs.

Don't agree with the club constitution? There are mechanisms available to you to change it. Ranting against a perceived lack of board transparency on an anonymous online forum isn't one of them however, and it carries about as much weight as hashtag activism.

If you truly believe change is necessary, then stop waiting for the world to solve your problems for you and go do something about it. Stand for election on a platform of constitutional change, and put your case to the members. Too hard? You can just just keep whining like a child, if that's what you'd prefer.

While you're at it, maybe go find out what a board actually is and isn't responsible for. So much angst arising from so many incorrect assumptions could be avoided with just a little research.

Who you directing that rant at?

 

[Goldust]

Now, I'm not going to claim to know the ins and outs of how our board operates. (I have a decent idea but not an extensive knowledge)
What irks me a little is, we just had an election, I didn't see these two names as options to vote in.
We then have two of our board members leave and casual vacancies open up. Subsequently, these two, with all due respect, relatively unknown people are appointed by the nominations committee.

Something doesn't smell right to me and according to some I'm one of the flower sniffers on this board that thinks everything is fine and dandy all the time.
I'm sure everything was done as per our constitution but people find loopholes in everything nowadays.

I could almost put my house on it, that at the next AGM, both of these board members will retain their positions because the vast majority of our member base simply won't vote, won't think to vote, nor care to vote because they wouldn't know any board members from a bar of soap. Mainly because we never see them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well spoken prodigy.
I'll tell you why you didn't see their name ... there was no incentive for Dr Turf's kid and General Powell to put themselves up for election when they were eventually going to be granted a board role. Hence , no need to stand.
Would you stand for parliament and risk losing an election f you were going to be propelled straight into the Senate.
The timing of the resignations were critical.
But that's how boards are formulated - at Richmond and elsewhere.

 

[Goldust]

And I am of the opinion that I'd prefer people who have a better knowledge of the applicants, their careers, what they will bring to the table and what is required at the table to make those decisions...
Not 4K people who (for the majority) have no idea about any of these people apart from what the club tells them in a 200 word bio.

What makes a member of the Migration Council such an outstanding applicant?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Now, I'm not going to claim to know the ins and outs of how our board operates. (I have a decent idea but not an extensive knowledge)
What irks me a little is, we just had an election, I didn't see these two names as options to vote in.
We then have two of our board members leave and casual vacancies open up. Subsequently, these two, with all due respect, relatively unknown people are appointed by the nominations committee.

Something doesn't smell right to me and according to some I'm one of the flower sniffers on this board that thinks everything is fine and dandy all the time.
I'm sure everything was done as per our constitution but people find loopholes in everything nowadays.

I could almost put my house on it, that at the next AGM, both of these board members will retain their positions because the vast majority of our member base simply won't vote, won't think to vote, nor care to vote because they wouldn't know any board members from a bar of soap. Mainly because we never see them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The math doesnt support that

Your assuming people who dont vote would want change if they could be bothered voting. The fact they didnt indicates they are indifferent, because they lack the motivation to give a ****

Any challenger has the same issue that faces us presidential noms. They first have to find a way to engage the members enough to get them out to vote

We have had way too many "voice of the members" candidates, and all failed. We have seen a caro cheerleadered macek ticket using massive mass media support, and it failed. We have had astroturfers and what ever the **** fof was, and they failed.

The two who came closest, rex (win) and wallace (close loss) did it by engaging the members with honesty and sincere dialogue on radio, newspapers, and social media. They didnt media manage, stay on message, or feed us bullshit lines, but spoke honestly about what they thought they could contribute.

Hopefully future candidates who challenge direct learn from them both

 

[JazMac]

The members have to approve any changes to the constitution

We have the constitution we agreed to, the board forced nothing on us.

I just had a quick read through the relevant section (8) of the TFC constitution. It states that casual vacancies "may" be appointed by the board - not that they "must" be appointed by the board. From my quick read, there is nothing in the constitution that precludes the club from having casual vacancies filled by election by the membership. Can someone point me to where it says that the club can't have casual vacancies elected by the membership? The language used implies that it is expected that casual vacancies would result in the board making appointments - but I can't see where it says that it must be done that way.

 

[TigerImposter]

4,686 members voted.. it was a 2 minute online poll.
Maybe 10% of them bothered to research the candidates beyond the 200 word bio... the other 90% went with what they liked reading or a name that sounded familiar..
Yet we want these same people to vote on every appointment...

I know the details as we went through this whine pre Christmas .
I was just being a pain in the arse out of boredom. The notion of handpicking their own was obvious back then . It was only names and announcement time the myth.
FYI I heard some people voted more than once so it appears less than 4686 actually voted.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

What makes a member of the Migration Council such an outstanding applicant?

Better than the grog squad?

 

[Sir_Loin]

What makes a member of the Migration Council such an outstanding applicant?

Their understanding of migrants. Help the board/club understand more about those communities and how we can be a more accessible and inclusive club for them

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I just had a quick read through the relevant section (8) of the TFC constitution. It states that casual vacancies "may" be appointed by the board - not that they "must" be appointed by the board. From my quick read, there is nothing in the constitution that precludes the club from having casual vacancies filled by election by the membership. Can someone point me to where it says that the club can't have casual vacancies elected by the membership? The language used implies that it is expected that casual vacancies would result in the board making appointments - but I can't see where it says that it must be done that way.

Ill dig it out when im back in melb on friday (this phone sucks for downloading pdfs)

 

[Goldust]

Their understanding of migrants. Help the board/club understand more about those communities and how we can be a more accessible and inclusive club for them

Plausible and understandable.
But I doubt that's how she got the gig.
But I hope those credentials help.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Plausible and understandable.
But I doubt that's how she got the gig.
But I hope those credentials help.

She's very well credentialed and has had a lot to do with the club through various committees.

 

[Goldust]

Better than the grog squad?

Does MadT stand in the Grog Squad?
I'd trust Dr Turf's kid to know more about footy!

 

[TigerImposter]

Now, I'm not going to claim to know the ins and outs of how our board operates. (I have a decent idea but not an extensive knowledge)
What irks me a little is, we just had an election, I didn't see these two names as options to vote in.
We then have two of our board members leave and casual vacancies open up. Subsequently, these two, with all due respect, relatively unknown people are appointed by the nominations committee.

Something doesn't smell right to me and according to some I'm one of the flower sniffers on this board that thinks everything is fine and dandy all the time.
I'm sure everything was done as per our constitution but people find loopholes in everything nowadays.

I could almost put my house on it, that at the next AGM, both of these board members will retain their positions because the vast majority of our member base simply won't vote, won't think to vote, nor care to vote because they wouldn't know any board members from a bar of soap. Mainly because we never see them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's how it's gone to the letter since Rex got in years ago.This is why it's not a democracy and voting members are railroaded .
Still we have to accept this bc of the non voters who couldn't give a damn.

 

[Goldust]

She's very well credentialed and has had a lot to do with the club through various committees.

They appararently all are ... well credential and connected!

 

[prodigy]

The math doesnt support that

Your assuming people who dont vote would want change if they could be bothered voting. The fact they didnt indicates they are indifferent, because they lack the motivation to give a ****

Any challenger has the same issue that faces us presidential noms. They first have to find a way to engage the members enough to get them out to vote

We have had way too many "voice of the members" candidates, and all failed. We have seen a caro cheerleadered macek ticket using massive mass media support, and it failed. We have had astroturfers and what ever the **** fof was, and they failed.

The two who came closest, rex (win) and wallace (close loss) did it by engaging the members with honesty and sincere dialogue on radio, newspapers, and social media. They didnt media manage, stay on message, or feed us bullshit lines, but spoke honestly about what they thought they could contribute.

Hopefully future candidates who challenge direct learn from them both

No, I'm assuming if there was more of a public presence from our board members or potential board members we would have more members voting whether it would be for or against. This is in the best interests of the club. To have as many members engaged as possible.

I'm not talking about radio stints on AM radio or SEN. I'm talking about getting on the official website and delivering an article written by the board member/potential board member introducing themselves, better yet a video.
I don't want to read a bio written by some media pleb of how they are qualified to take on the role.

Engage with the members, that's the only way more members will vote.
I'm sure a small minority will know who these people are and I'm sure they are great people and may well do a great job. Issue is, how they got to this position when I've never heard of them before and I try my best to keep in-tune with all things RFC. Majority of members aren't like me, or anyone on this online board for that matter so chances are they won't even see this announcement and when the election rolls around again... Oh no, only 5k of our 70k members voted - I wonder why that is?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk