Coup d'etat perhaps?
OK, so who were thinking would lead this?
Coup d'etat perhaps?
I will. I have no experience or knowledge of organizing coups. But in the spirit of dragons' coaching appointments, I feel that I am eminently qualified.OK, so who were thinking would lead this?
I will. I have no experience or knowledge of organizing coups. But in the spirit of dragons' coaching appointments, I feel that I am eminently qualified.
I was thinking a former forumer Vasilevsky/Sigurd. He had quite a mind for history and politics. I think he would be an apt choice.OK, so who were thinking would lead this?
He lifted us into the semis.
Ok Carlton,I will. I have no experience or knowledge of organizing coups. But in the spirit of dragons' coaching appointments, I feel that I am eminently qualified.
OT,Rob
The financials are available to the public every year in a detailed report.
Mass membership will require a 3 year strategy and in between time they could easily effect a change in the constitution to counter that.
Running a club poorly is not an issue for ASIC where trading insolvent or doing illegal things certainly is.
There is no indication of us being insolvent and whilst some think that the management is poor, out of touch, outdated etc there is no law against them being that way and it all reverts to a membership vote as to who you want to run the place.
Great that some people think about this, but don't be naive enough to think that they too have not thought this through and will run significant counter measures.
Rob
The financials are available to the public every year in a detailed report.
Mass membership will require a 3 year strategy and in between time they could easily effect a change in the constitution to counter that.
Running a club poorly is not an issue for ASIC where trading insolvent or doing illegal things certainly is.
There is no indication of us being insolvent and whilst some think that the management is poor, out of touch, outdated etc there is no law against them being that way and it all reverts to a membership vote as to who you want to run the place.
Great that some people think about this, but don't be naive enough to think that they too have not thought this through and will run significant counter measures.
Lots of stuff written about the club, many different threads, some here and in JA, some in the paper etc etc
A few groups have tried to get interest or do things and it normally all falls in heap for a range of issues.
1. Who is the spokesperson and why should it be that person.
2. Differing agendas
3. Too many personalities
Having thought long and hard about this it really all comes down to a few simple things.
1. Are we happy with the BOD and senior management.
2. Are we happy with on field performance.
3. Are we happy with coaching staff and the manner of appointment.
Thinking outside the square if a public meeting was held at a venue and there were in fact no people putting motions or talking to particular motions just keep it simple.
The people arrive at the arranged time and the heads are counted.
If the points I have put above or similar are the issues then you have a simple vote with no discussion as to why or how because those discussions is what f**ks all these things up and creates the division.
After the votes are taken the findings are delivered to the BOD and the press if they are interested.
Now here is the key
How many bums on seats do you really think you will get and how many bums on seats do you think it will take for any notice to be taken of it?
If it turns out rag tag the BOD win convincingly and we are all dismissed as rabble and a few malcontents.