The OFFICIAL 2011 Board Election Thread

[RoyalBlue]

PDR and Ron? I'm an RJ defender, but how unconstructive would their influence be?

Has Caroline got a policy for directors chairs on sidelines?

 

[The Other Dean]

Jaysus. Thread has somehow managed to find a new low.

If people creating accounts for the purpose of spinelessly attempting to fling some crap at CC were targetting anyone else other than the BF illuminati's non-preferred candidate, this rubbish would be set upon and dismissed as the transparent, fail-heavy, muck-raking shit that it is.

Now watch as the site's finest minds put 2 and 2 together to get 5.

Loving the balance. Bigfooty at its finest.

 

[The Other Dean]

Pretty obvious now that Cat's Paw Carnegie is just a stooge for the embittered PdR who can't get his around the fact that time has moved on and so has the club. It isn't his personal plaything anymore.

 

[Strummaster]

Jaysus. Thread has somehow managed to find a new low.

If people creating accounts for the purpose of spinelessly attempting to fling some crap at CC were targetting anyone else other than the BF illuminati's non-preferred candidate, this rubbish would be set upon and dismissed as the transparent, fail-heavy, muck-raking shit that it is.

Now watch as the site's finest minds put 2 and 2 together to get 5.

Loving the balance. Bigfooty at its finest.

Any Chance we can shit this Shite thread down D.O.P is using up all our jumps to conclusion and we need them for other threads

 

[Husk]

This thread kicks ass.

 

[RoyalBlue]

Still no word on Caroline's Directors Chairs by the Sidelines Policy.

 

[MaddAdam]

Given Assange is a well known North supporter, I'd actually be interested in his take on all this.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Caroline Carnegie run for the board on a PdR ticket a few years ago?

 

[Hearts to hearts]

And who could forget Mark "Nostrils" Brayshaw's previous policy on re/colocation? History is complicated.

Last time I looked, Peter de Rauch - goose or not - is still a financial member of the club who hasn't lost any of his passion or commitment, or his wherewithall to help if he chooses. Ron Joseph, whatever his current relationship with the Brayshaws, is a legend and hero of the club. I refuse to automatically count against someone that they stay on good terms with guys like that.


Surely we can appreciate what current Directors have done without turning into little apparatchiks. What's the point of a right to vote if you are only allowed to use it in unquestioning support of the status quo?

I haven't decided yet, but some of the rubbish in this thread makes me far more likely to vote for a fresh face than not.

And I look forward to the newbies sticking around to talk about football.

 

[LT Smash]

H2H, you are one of my favourite posters on the board here, a true rose among the thorns, but on this point I have to disagree. I would much rather see people vigorously test the mettle and the policies of those standing for the board. I'd rather people who are mindlessly defending the poor little outsider, actually ask the tough questions of the people they would willingly throw off the board. Caroline doesn't need defending. She's a lawyer, she's tough enough to handle herself, she's inner sanctum club elite and therefore, not an outsider, and frankly (and obviously this next part is not aimed at you H2H), but I find the lame gallantry of some posters defending her honour as the put upon damsel in distress to be offensive. Let's have this debate. Gloves off. This is democracy. Not just siding with the challenger because you feel disenchanted. If that's your thing, you'd be better off stinking up the public gardens with the Occupy Melbourne turnips.

So again, if you really, really want a democratic process, don't complain about people exercising their democratic right to query the candidates. And don't offend the very essence of democratic values by protest voting against something on a forum that has nothing to do with the best interests of the club. Question everything and make an informed choice, again, for the best interests of the club.

 

[MaddAdam]

And who could forget Mark "Nostrils" Brayshaw's previous policy on re/colocation? History is complicated.

Last time I looked, Peter de Rauch - goose or not - is still a financial member of the club who hasn't lost any of his passion or commitment, or his wherewithall to help if he chooses. Ron Joseph, whatever his current relationship with the Brayshaws, is a legend and hero of the club. I refuse to automatically count against someone that they stay on good terms with guys like that.


Surely we can appreciate what current Directors have done without turning into little apparatchiks. What's the point of a right to vote if you are only allowed to use it in unquestioning support of the status quo?

I haven't decided yet, but some of the rubbish in this thread makes me far more likely to vote for a fresh face than not.

And I look forward to the newbies sticking around to talk about football.

Good post. I agree

Who is the fresh face you're referring to though?

By my reading, that would be Laycock. Houghton is already on board and Carnegie is a long term inner sanctum type with very close links to long established power brokers.

It is like saying the newest member of the Australian Parliament, NSW Senator Arthur Sinodinos is a fresh face in politics.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

So again, if you really, really want a democratic process, don't complain about people exercising their democratic right to query the candidates. And don't offend the very essence of democratic values by protest voting against something on a forum that has nothing to do with the best interests of the club. Question everything and make an informed choice, again, for the best interests of the club.

Cheers, LTS. I do enjoy questioning - I'd just like to see everyone questioned with equal vigour. I don't mind that Joseph questioned the debt levels before he left the Board, I don't mind peple asking about Caroline's plans - it's all part of democracy. I just don't think snide posts about who has dinner with who are contributing anything much. And I don't think the fact a candidate isn't hand-picked by the Board should count against them. Although nor, to take your point, should that in itself count for them unless the people running things are stuffing up.

I find it very hard to choose between a selection of worthy candidates. I'd rather hear more about them, if that's at all possible.

 

[Shinboner Schem]

Cheers, LTS. I do enjoy questioning - I'd just like to see everyone questioned with equal vigour. I don't mind that Joseph questioned the debt levels before he left the Board, I don't mind peple asking about Caroline's plans - it's all part of democracy. I just don't think snide posts about who has dinner with who are contributing anything much. And I don't think the fact a candidate isn't hand-picked by the Board should count against them. Although nor, to take your point, should that in itself count for them unless the people running things are stuffing up.

I find it very hard to choose between a selection of worthy candidates. I'd rather hear more about them, if that's at all possible.

i second that!

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Good post. I agree

Who is the fresh face you're referring to though?

By my reading, that would be Laycock. Houghton is already on board and Carnegie is a long term inner sanctum type with very close links to long established power brokers.

It is like saying the newest member of the Australian Parliament, NSW Senator Arthur Sinodinos is a fresh face in politics.

Fair point. Honestly it is a real appeal in Laycock's cv that she is used to running and marketing things that aren't football clubs, and can look at the challenges with fewer preconceptions. And if she's in the sanctum she hasn't been there long enough to let it limit her.

My main question to any of them would be why they are standing, and I don't think the answer came across in any of their statements. The Directors of the NMFC almost certainly have greater power to affect my life than anyone else I'm ever going to vote for, so I'd like to feel I knew a bit more about the options.

 

[MaddAdam]

Fair point. Honestly it is a real appeal in Laycock's cv that she is used to running and marketing things that aren't football clubs, and can look at the challenges with fewer preconceptions. And if she's in the sanctum she hasn't been there long enough to let it limit her.

My main question to any of them would be why they are standing, and I don't think the answer came across in any of their statements. The Directors of the NMFC almost certainly have greater power to affect my life than anyone else I'm ever going to vote for, so I'd like to feel I knew a bit more about the options.

Indeed.

I'd also like to see Laycock and Houghton give people an opportunity to question them.

I appreciate Caroline Carnegie doing that and taking the time to respond to my question, even if I didn't get a whole lot from her answer.

The fact that she came on here and put herself up front and square (and provided email contact) is to be commended.

 

[LT Smash]

The fact that she came on here and put herself up front and square (and provided email contact) is to be commended.

Commendable yes, but as mentioned in a previous post, historically it is perhaps ill-advised. No-one has ever secured a board position by appearing on Big Footy. Why would that be? Perhaps it's because the nature of internet forums makes them unfriendly territory for political candidates as the users control the environment such that the slick operators with their prepared sound bites and their PR consultant message massaging are all essentially useless. A forum like this exposes the candidate naked, and very few politicians come out of that looking the goods.

So sure it would be nice to have Will Houghton and Kanga Laycock come to Big Footy for their serve of pummelling, but if I was advising them, I'd be obliged to tell them stay away.

 

[MaddAdam]

Commendable yes, but as mentioned in a previous post, historically it is perhaps ill-advised. No-one has ever secured a board position by appearing on Big Footy. Why would that be? Perhaps it's because the nature of internet forums makes them unfriendly territory for political candidates as the users control the environment such that the slick operators with their prepared sound bites and their PR consultant message massaging are all essentially useless. A forum like this exposes the candidate naked, and very few politicians come out of that looking the goods.

So sure it would be nice to have Will Houghton and Kanga Laycock come to Big Footy for their serve of pummelling, but if I was advising them, I'd be obliged to tell them stay away.

I think it is more because there's actually not that many voters on BigFooty.

Even if a candidate managed to get 100 per cent of the BigFooty vote, they'd have locked about 3 - 5 per cent of the entire electorate at most.

 

[Limerick]

Commendable yes, but as mentioned in a previous post, historically it is perhaps ill-advised. No-one has ever secured a board position by appearing on Big Footy. Why would that be? Perhaps it's because the nature of internet forums makes them unfriendly territory for political candidates as the users control the environment such that the slick operators with their prepared sound bites and their PR consultant message massaging are all essentially useless. A forum like this exposes the candidate naked, and very few politicians come out of that looking the goods.

So sure it would be nice to have Will Houghton and Kanga Laycock come to Big Footy for their serve of pummelling, but if I was advising them, I'd be obliged to tell them stay away.

I think that this raises a weakness with the current process, acknowledging that its new to the NMFC community. This is that as voters we don't get to raise questions of the candidates. BF is not the appropriate forum, however it would sit well on the NMFC web site.

We have, in my opinion, three strong candidates but no mechanism by which we can assess them further. As shown on this forum it appears to come down to a "don't rock the boat - the Board is functioning well" versus "maybe the new candidate will improve the Board". The challenge I find myself facing is that I don't know what the two incumbents have contributed as individuals so as to judge them against the challenger.

 

[Event Horizon]

Perhaps it will sound wrong, but would be good to have some financial contribution as a requirement to join the board. For example 50k contribution as a right to join. The board should ideally be full of business people with money, and they should be able to contribute easily, and these sorts of people should have no problem helping the club to make money, in both football and non football revenue streams.

 

[MaddAdam]

Perhaps it will sound wrong, but would be good to have some financial contribution as a requirement to join the board. For example 50k contribution as a right to join. The board should ideally be full of business people with money, and they should be able to contribute easily, and these sorts of people should have no problem helping the club to make money, in both football and non football revenue streams.

Yes, that does sound wrong. In fact, one thing that does give me the irrits is how success in "business" is seen as the only possible qualification for being on the board.

Obviously finances are hugely important at a club like North (and club) but your suggestion is wildy off.

There's no reason why the board should be full of business people with money. If people want to contribute cash, they can do so via cotories or many other avenues.

 

[Limerick]

While I can see the merit in having cashed up, influential, well connected people on the Board to have a $50k hurdle would put as back in the pre 2007 days where buying B class shares was the way in.

 

[Event Horizon]

Yes, that does sound wrong. In fact, one thing that does give me the irrits is how success in "business" is seen as the only possible qualification for being on the board.

Obviously finances are hugely important at a club like North (and club) but your suggestion is wildy off.

There's no reason why the board should be full of business people with money. If people want to contribute cash, they can do so via cotories or many other avenues.

I didn't say having the money is the only requirement - but I can't see how someone who loves North (as we all do) and who has done some volunteering (don't mean anyone in particular, just an example) is enough to join the board.

At the end of the day the board is there to drive the club forward, and if they aren't successful business people, I can't see how they can really do that.

 

[Event Horizon]

While I can see the merit in having cashed up, influential, well connected people on the Board to have a $50k hurdle would put as back in the pre 2007 days where buying B class shares was the way in.

It wouldn't be sufficient to have 50k - that would be just one of the requirements. But you'd still have to be elected, unlike the previous share holding arrangement.

 

[Limerick]

It wouldn't be sufficient to have 50k - that would be just one of the requirements. But you'd still have to be elected, unlike the previous share holding arrangement.

But you have to agree to put up $50k if you were elected, so it becomes a filter at the first step.

 

[Event Horizon]

But you have to agree to put up $50k if you were elected, so it becomes a filter at the first step.

That's right, but I can't think of too many examples of people who couldn't put that up, but would still warrant a position on the board. In some cases, people could opt to put up 50k from a family (eg Brayshaw) and have one of the candidates from that family join the board. But if someone had the money, but was seen as a disruptive influence, they could still be blocked by the members and wouldn't have an automatic entry.

When I think of myself as an example - I love the club and have plenty of ideas from the outer that I would contribute. But that's no where near enough to warrant a board position. If I was running a successful business however, I would think I would be able to help the club in real terms, instead of just talk and ideas. In that case I would love to put my hand up, and would have no problem to be asked to bring some money in.

 

[MaddAdam]

When I think of myself as an example - I love the club and have plenty of ideas from the outer that I would contribute. But that's no where near enough to warrant a board position. If I was running a successful business however, I would think I would be able to help the club in real terms, instead of just talk and ideas. In that case I would love to put my hand up, and would have no problem to be asked to bring some money in.

In the event that this ludicrous plan - selling board spots - did come in, I'd be setting the bar slightly higher than 50k.