News ROTHSCHILD AND POWELL JOIN RICHMOND BOARD

[Sir_Loin]

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

Yeah look it's all part of the game. In Rothschilds instance she's put in a lot of time at the club already so she's well known to them. I think they've heard the dissatisfaction with the boards performance and the feeling it was getting stale. They've freshened it up - I like the sound of the appointments it's now down to them to perform.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

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

You think people dont vote in us elections because they dont know the candidates?

People dont vote in footy club elections because they dont care. They care about the players, the coaches, and the results, they dont care about the board because its boring admin shit

No amount of youtube videos will get people to care about governance comimittees, due dilligence, or oversight

I dont like its, but thats the way it is

 

[TigerImposter]

The other gripe with the constitution is how Peggy and other members can avoid going to election based on the backing of the board. So if you have an incompetent board /president or members who have been on the board for nearly two decades without even seeing a finals win ( changed to three terms recently) they just get protected by the boards constitutional force field. It takes away accountability bc the board will protect each other no matter how poor the scenario is. How can incompetent people be expected to choose competently is the concern ?

 

[prodigy]

You think people dont vote in us elections because they dont know the candidates?

People dont vote in footy club elections because they dont care. They care about the players, the coaches, and the results, they dont care about the board because its boring admin shit

No amount of youtube videos will get people to care about governance comimittees, due dilligence, or oversight

I dont like its, but thats the way it is

I have to disagree. You can't just assume that, and can I ask what's the harm?

What's the harm in the board members actually putting their mugs in front of a camera and telling the member base what they intend on implementing/changing for the upcoming year.
I would sure as hell watch it. I'm sure many others would as well.

I don't doubt that the board members do a power of work but all I'm asking for is them to engage. If it delivers the same voting results, then I'll shut my trap. I just really don't like how it's being done at present.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shaky]

BUT the question has to be asked. If Rothschild and Poiwell were so keen to join our board, why did they not avail themselves for an election?
I like Keilor Tiger have little faith in the democratic system, as I have seen governments both conservative and Labor pull this short of crap continually, stacking boards with former pollies, powerbrokers, supporters etc. It's the way of the world.
Sadly, our club operates the same way.
Our current regime will continue stacking the board with their mates just as governments do ... it's just the way it goes.

I'm no huge fan of everything the board has done, but I'm not cynical enough (yet) to think there is any big conspiracy in what they do.
They at the very least believe what they are doing is in the best interests of the club (like any gonvernment?).
Football boards these days are more than ever about people from big business (with some token footy people), but footy is big business now.
The new board members seem to have some new skill sets to bring in, so I don't have any issue with them.

 

[shaky]

The other gripe with the constitution is how Peggy and other members can avoid going to election based on the backing of the board. So if you have an incompetent board /president or members who have been on the board for nearly two decades without even seeing a finals win ( changed to three terms recently) they just get protected by the boards constitutional force field. It takes away accountability bc the board will protect each other no matter how poor the scenario is. How can incompetent people be expected to choose competently is the concern ?

If the board is truly incompetent an EGM can be called by the members.
Yes I know the current board tried to make this hard, but the members denied a change in a democratic vote!

 

[Livonski]

How is it a dumb question, I want to know who was the last person voted on to the board that wasn't appointed via a casual vacancy beforehand.

Because implicit in the question there is a conspiracy to not let us rank and file members vote someone in.

We all just had the chance and decided against it. So there could be lots of board members voted in by us, but we don't seem to want to.

It then follows that we, the 70,000 members, are happy with the constitution and casual

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I have to disagree. You can't just assume that, and can I ask what's the harm?

What's the harm in the board members actually putting their mugs in front of a camera and telling the member base what they intend on implementing/changing for the upcoming year.
I would sure as hell watch it. I'm sure many others would as well.

I don't doubt that the board members do a power of work but all I'm asking for is them to engage. If it delivers the same voting results, then I'll shut my trap. I just really don't like how it's being done at present.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Personally i have no issue with this, but imo it wont work

Speak to peeps at games, and they dont care about the board stuff - they dont link the governance of the club with onfield success, and the latter is all they care about

Look at most company boards. Shareholders rarely show up in numbers unless the company is imploding

Punters just dont care

 

[SunshineBoy]

Does anyone in the know, know exactly what they gain from being on the board as they do not get paid?

Calling Helen Wheels

 

[SunshineBoy]

I'll say it again slowly:

If a board member steps down then their position should be put up at the next election, not 1, 2 or 3 years later.

But the constitution states that this isn't the case and the club can effectively appoint whomever they choose. Why has this never been put up for change?


Oh and while you're answering that question, can you also tell us who the last board member was to be voted on to the board by the members directly? You've only been asked half a dozen times but are yet to produce an answer.

The optics on this is poor, it might be legal, but is it moral?

 

[SunshineBoy]

Why didn't either of these two stand at the election, oh that's right there were only two spots which were already promised, it looks bad.

The optics on this is disgracefull why bother asking us to vote?

 

[SunshineBoy]

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

Yes

 

[SunshineBoy]

Because implicit in the question there is a conspiracy to not let us rank and file members vote someone in.

We all just had the chance and decided against it. So there could be lots of board members voted in by us, but we don't seem to want to.

It then follows that we, the 70,000 members, are happy with the constitution and casual

Why didn't either of these two contest?

 

[TigerImposter]

Why didn't either of these two stand at the election, oh that's right there were only two spots which were already promised, it looks bad.

The opticchis I dgracefull, why bother asking us to vote?

Peg stated they had many high quality applicants . They tore down the four walls to get into the joint .
actually I wonder if that Wallet guy was one?

 

[richoatthedisco]

Just as it happens in the senate before you cry about democracy

Paul Keating didn't call the senate "unrepresentative swill" for nothing.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Peg stated they had many high quality applicants . They tore down the walls to get into the joint .
actually I wonder if that Wallet guy was one?

Mate it looks bad, it looks like a fix, it smells like a fix, it even tastes like a fix

 

[SunshineBoy]

Paul Keating didn't call the senate "unrepresentative swill" for nothing.

And Keating was voted in

 

[blaisee]

BUT the question has to be asked. If Rothschild and Poiwell were so keen to join our board, why did they not avail themselves for an election?
.

excellent question

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Paul Keating didn't call the senate "unrepresentative swill" for nothing.

He had a way with words ole Paul

 

[blaisee]

Its an idiotic question

Every year we have an agm, and every year candidates are up for a vote

Most years members choose not to challenge

And if there is a contested election, outside of rex the members have always backed the board noms in recent years

Your issue is the members. They dont agree with you. Deal with it, because if they wanted change it is very easy to make happen.

So you answer is 1 board member out of the 12 has been elected by the members without getting the board gifting them a seat and endorsing them ?

The board is treating the members as fools, which we are of course. There will be less members this year than last year, and when they have to pay out the coach when they are forced to sack him, the vultures will circle, and I for one cant blame them.

It is a disgrace, and so are you for being so blatantly bias.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Why didn't either of these two stand at the election, oh that's right there were only two spots which were already promised, it looks bad.

The optics on this is disgracefull why bother asking us to vote?

Because the board had dunne and ryan as its two preferred candidates for the two contested spots.

 

[blaisee]

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

all well connected...to each other. Its a mates club that we are paying for.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So you answer is 1 board member out of the 12 has been elected by the members without getting the board gifting them a seat and endorsing them ?

The board is treating the members as fools, which we are of course. There will be less members this year than last year, and when they have to pay out the coach when they are forced to sack him, the vultures will circle, and I for one cant blame them.

It is a disgrace, and so are you for being so blatantly bias.

I voted

I pleaded constantly with people on here to vote

I helped my old man vote from os to make sure his vote was done in time

I attended the agm

I participated unlike over 40k of our members who couldnt be ****ed

If they vote in support of you, landside for your ticket

Where were they?

Did the board ban them from voting? Lock their net access? Lock them in a batcave?

Your issue is with the people who agree with you, but did nothing. Stop whining and do something about it. Run for the board or even better trigger an egm. You only need a couple of hundred like minded people to agree with you, and you can spill the entire board. Whats stopping you?

 

[richoatthedisco]

And Keating was voted in

Twelve times.

 

[1980]

Looks like Rothschild has already had a fair bit to do with the club via the noms committee and working on the risk and audit committee. She's put in some hard yards at the club so far so happy with the appointment of someone who has a fair idea of what's going on

Powell don't know much about apart from the bio but given his marketing background it's probably a good appointment from a sponsorship perspective

Have no issues with casual vacancy appointments of they're good

Yep look at all the dollars Seek spent sponsoring the RFC when he controlled the sponsorship budget over there