Toast TLR calls for vote on guernsey - update: Members vote for Premiership/Fitzroy Lion - it's back baby!

[Skoob]

Right when I was going to start a FB page.

Nice idea but;
I believe it is far more important and should have greater impact if there is a united, concerted effort and action rather than 20 separate groups. Having said that, a great number of groups speaks volumes as well.
I don't do FB but for those of you who do I suggest visiting and liking (or whatever it is you do) as many groups and pages as you can find. More importantly though, is to implore each of those to come together, to support each other, to create a united voice. Any and all websites and FB pages or groups must support each other in this common cause.
Post in as many FB pages about http://thelionsroar.net and what is trying to be achieved. Emphasise that action is in the pipeline for this week and that we all need to be heard together at once.

And please, please, all take the time to pen a letter and send by mail to the club this week.

 

[Elixuh]

I reckon the more people that write in the better.

+1

I've spent time this morning writing a letter. Hopefully it has some effect.

 

[Dylan12]

Post in as many FB pages about http://thelionsroar.net and what is trying to be achieved. Emphasise that action is in the pipeline for this week and that we all need to be heard together at once.

This cannot be emphasised enough.

Get the site out there and encourage as many people as possible to sign up.

Tell family, friends, work colleagues, the person sitting next to you on the bus/train, anyone who'll listen.

 

[Tairy Greene]

As a very wise man once said, "Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter".

Count me in.

 

[Bonz]

My Father is a 75 year old Fitzroy fan who has been a member of your club for most of his life.

When you guys originally changed your jumper to the Paddle Pop Lion he sent a letter to your board signed by himself and over 20 people at his local pub and he never received a reply.

I have personally sent 3 emails to your club on behalf of him, and never received a reply to a single one.

Personally I am sure that if someone started a petition and got it being shared around to supporters of all AFL clubs not just the Lion's you would get enough signatures to make your board stand up and notice, How could a club ignore upwards of 50,000 signatures?

It is simply ridiculous that they can't listen the needs and opinions of their own supporter base.

Will be writing another letter and sending it off today, Signed by my Father, Myself and anyone else we can find.

 

[Skoob]

I don't have the time but perhaps someone here will; I believe it is worthwhile tweeting the link to all players and past players (including Voss). I am happy for them to make their own choice on whether they comment or not. Sure they are likely to be gagged and they may incur a penalty from the club, but we should take the punt on gaining their weighty support.

My Father is a 75 year old Fitzroy fan who has been a member of your club for most of his life.

When you guys originally changed your jumper to the Paddle Pop Lion he sent a letter to your board signed by himself and over 20 people at his local pub and he never received a reply.

I have personally sent 3 emails to your club on behalf of him, and never received a reply to a single one.

Personally I am sure that if someone started a petition and got it being shared around to supporters of all AFL clubs not just the Lion's you would get enough signatures to make your board stand up and notice, How could a club ignore upwards of 50,000 signatures?

It is simply ridiculous that they can't listen the needs and opinions of their own supporter base.

Will be writing another letter and sending it off today, Signed by my Father, Myself and anyone else we can find.

If anyone has or can find contact details for other clubs and also media types like Luke Darcy, Tony Shaw, Richo, Cometti, BT, Sam Newman, etc, can you send them the link also. Maybe just maybe one of them will take an interest. Maybe one of them may make mention of the cause. Now is the time to pull out all stops and try every avenue we can think of to bring this issue to the fore.

 

[dlanod]

Personally I am sure that if someone started a petition and got it being shared around to supporters of all AFL clubs not just the Lion's you would get enough signatures to make your board stand up and notice, How could a club ignore upwards of 50,000 signatures?

There was a petition when the change was first announced that the club ignored that had several thousand signatures on it. However a change of leadership might open them up to pressure somewhat, or at least that's what the hope is. Round 2, fight!

 

[Mavlions1961]

Quentin Hull (ABC) is onboard

Quentin Hull @QuentinHull
Great to see so much love for my thoughts re 'old' @brisbanelions Lion. Really think the club should revisit the issue #abcafl #AFLDonsLions

 

[spotthedog1]

Awesome - I'm going to write in to the club and tell them that if they back down to a whiny (albeit loud) bunch of people who claim to represent "20,000 plus members, not to mention non-members or lapsed members who also feel strongly about the issue", I'm cancelling my membership.

Can tell that absolutely no one here even slightly understands corporate governance.

Would like a new guernsey in 2014 though. Not a paddlepop fan, but the old lion just looks so bland and outdated.

 

[Skoob]

Awesome - I'm going to write in to the club and tell them that if they back down to a whiny (albeit loud) bunch of people who claim to represent "20,000 plus members, not to mention non-members or lapsed members who also feel strongly about the issue", I'm cancelling my membership.

Can tell that absolutely no one here even slightly understands corporate governance.

Would like a new guernsey in 2014 though. Not a paddlepop fan, but the old lion just looks so bland and outdated.

No sense of tradition then?

 

[Jorgo]

Awesome - I'm going to write in to the club and tell them that if they back down to a whiny (albeit loud) bunch of people who claim to represent "20,000 plus members, not to mention non-members or lapsed members who also feel strongly about the issue", I'm cancelling my membership.

The more feedback the club gets the better! From all viewpoints on the issue!


The point of all this exercise seems to be just that from what I can tell. Have the club ask their members what they think. So all viewpoints are certainly welcomed and embraced. It's time for all Lions fans of all opinions to be able to have their say on this issue!

 

[dlanod]

Can tell that absolutely no one here even slightly understands corporate governance.

Feel free to enlighten us as to how "corporate governance" impacts upon jumper designs, and why it will prevent changes, bearing in mind that if your big idea involves major sponsors and jumper manufacturers, we've switched both since the original announcement and there was no consultation with the members given those prime opportunities to do so.

 

[irel]

Awesome - I'm going to write in to the club and tell them that if they back down to a whiny (albeit loud) bunch of people who claim to represent "20,000 plus members, not to mention non-members or lapsed members who also feel strongly about the issue", I'm cancelling my membership.

Can tell that absolutely no one here even slightly understands corporate governance.

Would like a new guernsey in 2014 though. Not a paddlepop fan, but the old lion just looks so bland and outdated.

You opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. However, please enlighten us? How does corporate governance work?

 

[Caiphus]

Awesome - I'm going to write in to the club and tell them that if they back down to a whiny (albeit loud) bunch of people who claim to represent "20,000 plus members, not to mention non-members or lapsed members who also feel strongly about the issue", I'm cancelling my membership.

Can tell that absolutely no one here even slightly understands corporate governance.

Would like a new guernsey in 2014 though. Not a paddlepop fan, but the old lion just looks so bland and outdated.

I think you are missing the point spotthedog1, it isn't a simple matter of wanting the club to change the guernsey back at the behest of a loud minority. There has been independent research that shows that it is a DIVISIVE issue and that stakeholders are upset that they were never consulted by their representatives on the board.

In regards to the bolded item: It's that kind of holier than thou attitude that has lead to the board figuring they can get away with making decisions and not being held to account by the stakeholders.

The jumper issue will hopefully be the catalyst for merged club fans to start holding the board to account and show the difference between being a member of a footy club and just being a fan with a season ticket.

 

[ZoBlitz]

Troll post is a troll.

 

[Skoob]

Can tell that absolutely no one here even slightly understands corporate governance.

.

Nor does the Lions board it would seem

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporategovernance.asp

Definition of 'Corporate Governance'

The system of rules, practices and processes by which a company is directed and controlled. Corporate governance essentially involves balancing the interests of the many stakeholders in a company - these include its shareholders, management, customers, suppliers, financiers, government and the community. Since corporate governance also provides the framework for attaining a company's objectives, it encompasses practically every sphere of management, from action plans and internal controls to performance measurement and corporate disclosure.

 

[Ceebee]

Well, I have just hand written a letter on bright green notepaper and put it in a red envelope.
Cannot get more old fashioned than that, it should attract attention..

I wrote it as I think and didnt change it.
So ,as some of you that read how I post, it is an interesting letter.

 

[GabbaGirl]

Nor does the Lions board it would seem

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporategovernance.asp

You can us in as shareholders in a way too there skoob. In this case, the members are the shareholders. Kinda makes you think our views should count, don't you?

 

[spotthedog1]

I appreciate that people here haven't actually attacked me, as has happened previously when i've opposed changing back. I apologise for my bluntness, and against what I was planning when I (rather snarkily) posted, I will respond with my opinion. I just think that this debate should've finished 3 years ago. My post wasn't a great move, but I get passionate about people tearing down the club I love, and I see gross dissent over (what I deem) trivial matters to be unpatriotic. I get that other people here view the jumper as something to be passionate about, but honestly, I don't.

RE: Tradition
My sense of tradition is in the club, not what they wear. This includes various historical factors, of which the numerous jumpers we've worn at different times play a small factor. Premierships (not what we were wearing at the time), classic games/wins and historical players are my preferred aspects of club pride.

RE: Priorities
Priorities come down to values. My values surrounding a football club include loyalty (but not to any particular jumper), ethics (though i'm sure some would debate this, I have no issue), and winning.

RE: Corporate Governance
Corporate Governance of any business (no matter what their profit motive is, and I would suggest that for a football club, the profit motive would include $, # of members, and premierships) deals with how the club operates. Members appoint a board. A board is primarily involved in determining the strategic direction of the business, and the appointment of a CEO. A CEO is in charge of implementing that strategy, and makes general operating decisions for the business. The CEO appoints experts in various areas to fulfil their roles. Having the board involved in operating decisions is bad corporate governance, and we end up with too many cooks spoiling the broth. Having the CEO of a football club involved in coaching would be stupid - doesn't matter that he's ranking, it's not his place. Having members involved in general operating decisions is worse still, as they aren't experts in any number of things (including law, sales, marketing, football operations, strength and conditioning, etc). Only for decisions involving the role of the CEO, or the strategic direction of a business do the board get involved. I would argue that jumper design should fall to the CEO, or if it's viewed to affect strategic direction of the business (the view most AFL clubs take), then the board should get involved. Having members making strategic business decisions is ludicrous, for the same reasons that they shouldn't be involved in general operating of the business. Members should ONLY be involved in voting in the board, voting on matters affecting the constitution of the entity, and remuneration of directors (the last two for legal purposes only).

That's why I would not like that club to give the members an actual vote on something like a jumper. The club stuffed up the transition to the current jersey, absolutely. But they should not be held hostage by members. Should the club arrange member consultation? Yes. Should it take feedback into account? Yes, but only as one aspect. Other aspects should include ability to market off it, ability to sell more jerseys, ability to attract new customers, and about 20 other things of which the average member would have no informed idea. So the board stuffed up. It happens. The team stuffed up on Saturday night. The coach probably stuffed during the week (i'd suggest team selection, but I'm not an expert on the matter). Should they have consulted members better? Yes. Should they have given the members a binding vote? No. No no no no no no no no no - not now, not ever.

 

[Apex61]

Stick a fork in the dam kiddy Lion.
Who the hell designed the dam thing ?
The bloody wiggles.

Bleh

 

[dlanod]

RE: Corporate Governance
Corporate Governance of any business (no matter what their profit motive is, and I would suggest that for a football club, the profit motive would include $, # of members, and premierships) deals with how the club operates. Members appoint a board. A board is primarily involved in determining the strategic direction of the business, and the appointment of a CEO. A CEO is in charge of implementing that strategy, and makes general operating decisions for the business. The CEO appoints experts in various areas to fulfil their roles. Having the board involved in operating decisions is bad corporate governance, and we end up with too many cooks spoiling the broth. Having the CEO of a football club involved in coaching would be stupid - doesn't matter that he's ranking, it's not his place. Having members involved in general operating decisions is worse still, as they aren't experts in any number of things (including law, sales, marketing, football operations, strength and conditioning, etc). Only for decisions involving the role of the CEO, or the strategic direction of a business do the board get involved. I would argue that jumper design should fall to the CEO, or if it's viewed to affect strategic direction of the business (the view most AFL clubs take), then the board should get involved. Having members making strategic business decisions is ludicrous, for the same reasons that they shouldn't be involved in general operating of the business. Members should ONLY be involved in voting in the board, voting on matters affecting the constitution of the entity, and remuneration of directors (the last two for legal purposes only).

That's why I would not like that club to give the members an actual vote on something like a jumper. The club stuffed up the transition to the current jersey, absolutely. But they should not be held hostage by members. Should the club arrange member consultation? Yes. Should it take feedback into account? Yes, but only as one aspect. Other aspects should include ability to market off it, ability to sell more jerseys, ability to attract new customers, and about 20 other things of which the average member would have no informed idea. So the board stuffed up. It happens. The team stuffed up on Saturday night. The coach probably stuffed during the week (i'd suggest team selection, but I'm not an expert on the matter). Should they have consulted members better? Yes. Should they have given the members a binding vote? No. No no no no no no no no no - not now, not ever.

Great post. I think what most of us want is boiled down to in bold. I'm sure some people are demanding binding votes, but that would be pretty short-sighted. I think people want their voices heard because there has been absolutely no indication that that has happened at any stage of this, during the process or after.

The ultimate stage might end up being trying to get someone voted on to the board on this issue - after all shareholder activists have been voted to boards before (or more commonly bought off prior to the vote by adoption of their issue if it looks like they had the numbers) which, as you mention, is exactly where shareholders come in. And it will never get to that stage without the activism and pressure on the board in the lead-up to the AGM - so why not start now, if that is the aim.

 

[adey115]

I do believe that a Board is voted in to represent Members, and thus the Board appoints a CEO, and thus a CEO appoints staff etc and that repsonsibility is passed along as outlined above. And thus the Board and CEO should not be held hostage on normal everyday decision making and strategy.

However, blindingly stupid decision making and strategy - if that occurs - then I am all for the Board and CEO to be held hostage by Members.

Let's not confuse 'Corporate Governance' with 'Accountability'. I've not been shown once anywhere any proof that the change of Jumper has been a genuine positive result for the club - no evidence in merch sales, sponsorship, memberships - nothing. Not once has the Board or CEO said "well here are the positive results from that contraversial strategy change we've made". Not an iota or scrap of evidence. Nothing.

"We made this decision for the club in terms of changing the Jumper, and it has delivered X....."

Nothing. From the Board/CEO of the past, or the present.

Clearly it has caused angst. But nowhere have they outlined the positives, let alone showed how the positives might have outweighed the negatives involved. I've seen marketing press releases in relation to positive 'image' and mumbo jumbo at the time of the Jumper release. But nothing concrete post the contraversial decision to try and show that it was the right thing to do.

I firmly believe that how the Club went about making the change, the change that it was made to, the lack of consultation, and the continued disinterest in the issue, or lack of recognition that it is an issue for a large portion of people supporting the club, wholey and solely in relation to the jumper (not in relation to the PP as a marketing logo image), is a 100% blindingly stupid strategy. And because of that I'm happy to hold them hostage. My method of hostage holding has been to not spend a cent on the club for the past few years. To each their own as to how they react...

If we'd been allowed to vote in the first place on such a vital issue (mentioned above as allowing members to hold the Club hostage), we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm happy for the CEO and Board to be responsible for normal decision making, but along the way there are certain issues where you've got to go public and ask the people who you represent what they think - very few issues, but this was clearly one of those very few.

 

[Skoob]

RE: Corporate Governance
Corporate Governance of any business (no matter what their profit motive is, and I would suggest that for a football club, the profit motive would include $, # of members, and premierships) deals with how the club operates. Members appoint a board. A board is primarily involved in determining the strategic direction of the business, and the appointment of a CEO. A CEO is in charge of implementing that strategy, and makes general operating decisions for the business. The CEO appoints experts in various areas to fulfil their roles. Having the board involved in operating decisions is bad corporate governance, and we end up with too many cooks spoiling the broth. Having the CEO of a football club involved in coaching would be stupid - doesn't matter that he's ranking, it's not his place. Having members involved in general operating decisions is worse still, as they aren't experts in any number of things (including law, sales, marketing, football operations, strength and conditioning, etc). Only for decisions involving the role of the CEO, or the strategic direction of a business do the board get involved. I would argue that jumper design should fall to the CEO, or if it's viewed to affect strategic direction of the business (the view most AFL clubs take), then the board should get involved. Having members making strategic business decisions is ludicrous, for the same reasons that they shouldn't be involved in general operating of the business. Members should ONLY be involved in voting in the board, voting on matters affecting the constitution of the entity, and remuneration of directors (the last two for legal purposes only).

.

Well your reply just makes my response look glib.

Very good post. My take on tradition includes the jumper so proudly worn from the inception of our club.
I in no way discard or disrespect your sense of tradition.

I disagree that the CEO should determine what the club wears on field with or without the board's input.
This should be consulted with the members. Perhaps not voted for but certainly consulted. I don't see the change of Lion as business decision or at least if it is spun that way, I consider it a poor one. I see the Guernsey and the symbol on it much more than a marketing or branding thing to be changed on the whim of a CEO. he wasn't here in 1997 or 2001 and won't be here in 2028, we were and will be.
Vive le lion

 

[Viceregal]

And since the time of the last change didn't the board approve a member's charter which included explicit consultation on matters like this going forward?

 

[adey115]

And since the time of the last change didn't the board approve a member's charter which included explicit consultation on matters like this going forward?

Yep, but the problem with that as I see it is that the Board must first make the decision that the Jumper might need to be changed. So if they are considering ever changing the Jumper, then they'll consult. But what if they don't ever make the decision to consider changing the Jumper?

If so, then the statement in that member's charter holds little value.