WIN Corporation

[_Johnsy]

Installed not just the first outsider as CEO, but the first non-St George old boy as CEO.

I would have thought the entirety of the JV board would be responsible for that decision, not WIN. I could well be wrong though.

 

[possm]

I have a serious question, it’s not intended to fan the flames or increase tension or arguments. I ask as those who have a better knowledge of the clubs workings may have a better idea than me.

What have WIN done ( to improve the club) since their buyout of 50% of the Illawarra side of the JV?

50% of the JV

 

[muzby]

I would have thought the entirety of the JV board would be responsible for that decision, not WIN. I could well be wrong though.

Chairman gets the deciding vote if the board are split on anything..

 

[Old Timer]

Normal convention for a chairman says if the board is evenly split then the status quo remains
So in most cases the Chairman’s vote is quite benign.
If the chairman wants to prosecute an agenda then he has to vacate the chair to do so thus making all discussions equal in value as it is from the floor not the chair so it carries no more weight than any other board member.
Being a chairman can be a stifling experience and I have seen instances where people were voted in as the chair for that very reason namely to stifle their agenda or aspirations not that that might be the case here.

 

[muzby]

Normal convention for a chairman says if the board is evenly split then the status quo remains
So in most cases the Chairman’s vote is quite benign.
If the chairman wants to prosecute an agenda then he has to vacate the chair to do so thus making all discussions equal in value as it is from the floor not the chair so it carries no more weight than any other board member.
Being a chairman can be a stifling experience and I have seen instances where people were voted in as the chair for that very reason namely to stifle their agenda or aspirations not that that might be the case here.

It’s called a casting vote. Given it’s a decisive vote, I’d hardly call it benign.

 

[Old Timer]

It’s called a casting vote. Given it’s a decisive vote, I’d hardly call it benign.

Casting votes are not always available to a Chairman it depends on the constitution of the entity.
I have not seen our clubs constitution so I don't know if he in fact has a casting vote as he may in fact only have deliberative vote.
In the case of a casting vote as I said normal convention is for that vote to maintain the "status quo" as that allows for the issue to be debated again and voted on at a subsequent meeting.
If that convention is followed then IMO it becomes benign as everyone will know the outcome before the casting vote is actually cast.

Extract from an article by David Julian Price

Here are the important issues.

1. The casting vote can only be used if the person presiding has already cast their deliberative vote. So if the chair puts the issue to the vote, but does not vote him or herself and there is a tie, then the casting vote does not apply because they have not yet exercised their deliberative vote. (The deliberative vote should be used at the same time as everyone else votes – see the post on deliberative voting)

If, after they have exercise their deliberative vote there is a tie, then the casting vote can be exercised.

2. This is the really tricky bit for some people. A wise chair will nearly always exercise their casting vote to “preserve the status quo“. That means they will vote so the situation does NOT change. In most circumstances, that means that they will vote against the proposal although some proposals are worded so that a vote in favour preserves the status quo.

I can almost hear some people saying WHY????

The answer is that by preserving the status quo, the issue is free to be raised again at a later meeting when there is more support. But the reason wise people vote this way is that if the casting vote is used to change something, then the decision has in reality been made by one person – the person in the chair. As many people are in favour as are against and it is not a sound decision.

I have read research that shows that decisions that are made upon a casting vote nearly always get reversed at a following meeting and the people who regularly use their casting votes to make changes, are often challenged for their position when they come up for election.

Now there will be times when the chair will use their casting vote to make a change. These are things where there has been considerable debate over many meetings and a decision simply has to be made. These situations are rare but they do occur.

Bottom line is – use casting votes with great care.

 

[muzby]

Bottom line is – use casting votes with great care.

Particularly if the board is split in whether or not to extend Mary.

 

[possm]

Chairman gets the deciding vote if the board are split on anything..

Not at SGI - part of the deal was that the Chairman does not have a casting vote.

 

[_Johnsy]

Casting votes are not always available to a Chairman it depends on the constitution of the entity.
I have not seen our clubs constitution so I don't know if he in fact has a casting vote as he may in fact only have deliberative vote.
In the case of a casting vote as I said normal convention is for that vote to maintain the "status quo" as that allows for the issue to be debated again and voted on at a subsequent meeting.
If that convention is followed then IMO it becomes benign as everyone will know the outcome before the casting vote is actually cast.

Extract from an article by David Julian Price

Here are the important issues.

1. The casting vote can only be used if the person presiding has already cast their deliberative vote. So if the chair puts the issue to the vote, but does not vote him or herself and there is a tie, then the casting vote does not apply because they have not yet exercised their deliberative vote. (The deliberative vote should be used at the same time as everyone else votes – see the post on deliberative voting)

If, after they have exercise their deliberative vote there is a tie, then the casting vote can be exercised.

2. This is the really tricky bit for some people. A wise chair will nearly always exercise their casting vote to “preserve the status quo“. That means they will vote so the situation does NOT change. In most circumstances, that means that they will vote against the proposal although some proposals are worded so that a vote in favour preserves the status quo.

I can almost hear some people saying WHY????

The answer is that by preserving the status quo, the issue is free to be raised again at a later meeting when there is more support. But the reason wise people vote this way is that if the casting vote is used to change something, then the decision has in reality been made by one person – the person in the chair. As many people are in favour as are against and it is not a sound decision.

I have read research that shows that decisions that are made upon a casting vote nearly always get reversed at a following meeting and the people who regularly use their casting votes to make changes, are often challenged for their position when they come up for election.

Now there will be times when the chair will use their casting vote to make a change. These are things where there has been considerable debate over many meetings and a decision simply has to be made. These situations are rare but they do occur.

Bottom line is – use casting votes with great care.

if those issues are not written into the constitution of the JV they are moot points.

After a quick google search it doesn’t appear to be readily available, it may be something obtained under FOI laws, I’m not even sure if those laws cover constitutions of football boards.

 

[Old Timer]

if those issues are not written into the constitution of the JV they are moot points.

After a quick google search it doesn’t appear to be readily available, it may be something obtained under FOI laws, I’m not even sure if those laws cover constitutions of football boards.

It will be subject all sorts of laws
The only thing in question is if the constitution states if the chairman has a casting vote or not
Not all constitutions allow that.

 

[Saints Forever]

Chairman gets the deciding vote if the board are split on anything..

Hey Muz old boy

So you accept WIN are responsible for maintaining the great white dope McGregor as coach of the JV?

Seeing as Mr Gordon junior has the casting vote)

 

[muzby]

Hey Muz old boy

So you accept WIN are responsible for maintaining the great white dope McGregor as coach of the JV?

Seeing as Mr Gordon junior has the casting vote)

That’s implying that the St George half didn’t want him and a casting vote was required.

Considering that half of the board were in place for not just the initial appointment of Mary, but for his first extension too, I’d say that there’s a lingering love for the bald man from the St George side.

I can’t work out why though.

So I’d have to say in this instance there was no casting vote required.

Sorry.

 

[S.T.G]

That’s implying that the St George half didn’t want him and a casting vote was required.

Considering that half of the board were in place for not just the initial appointment of Mary, but for his first extension too, I’d say that there’s a lingering love for the bald man from the St George side.

I can’t work out why though.

So I’d have to say in this instance there was no casting vote required.

Sorry.

Whoever's voted for Mcgenius should be sacked

 

[muzby]

Whoever's voted for Mcgenius should be sacked

That’s the St George half of the board.

Agree, we should punt them.

Input some smart folk who support the saints and have the right business connections.

 

[S.T.G]

That’s the St George half of the board.

Agree, we should punt them.

Input some smart folk who support the saints and have the right business connections.

They can't be that stupid surely
Whoever it was has to go !

 

[Willow]

Chairman gets the deciding vote if the board are split on anything..

So do you know what the vote was for the new CEO?

 

[muzby]

So do you know what the vote was for the new CEO?

Yes, we went with Ryan Webb.

 

[Willow]

Yes, we went with Ryan Webb.

I guess that answers my question.

 

[Saint_JimmyG]

That in no way shape or form answers my question of how St George can be considered successful from 1980 - 1996.

What silverware do they have to show for that period?

The Panasonic Cup in 1988, which equals the Steelers achievement of winning the Toohey’s Challenge Cup from the early to mid 90s.

Do some research before asking stupid questions.

 

[Saint_JimmyG]

I have a serious question, it’s not intended to fan the flames or increase tension or arguments. I ask as those who have a better knowledge of the clubs workings may have a better idea than me.

What have WIN done ( to improve the club) since their buyout of 50% of the Illawarra side of the JV?

It has initiated a number of threads (including this one) due to its incompetence.