macavity
Referee
- Messages
- 20,638
Well, the AGM was tonight.
No real suprises I guess.
The only motion of note on notice was to extend the term for directors to 2 years. It was carried 140-something votes to 40-something, in spite of the best efforts of quite a few in the crowd. Bit of a disappointing result given the need to increase, rather than diminish, the accountability of the board.
Michael Hill was granted Life Membership of the club. Certainly warranted as he has given alot to the club. He does come over rather prickly in person though, to say the least. Very Autocratic style of management was evident. In accepting life membership he made a forceful yet eloquent speech about the history of the club, seeking to put the current troubles into perspective. Surely, however, I was not the only one to see his account not neccessarily as reflecting on triumph over adversity, but as also recounting a history of hand-to-mouth breadline existence, something to not exactly be proud of.
When the floor was opened to questions, it was quite obvious that most everyone was hesitant to speak up, probably mainly due to Hill's total inability to answer a question without sneering at the inquisitor. Questions were asked about Gizmondo (not worded well, but had the right basic question) - basically, Hill said he had handed his paper trail over to Hadley. One wonders if Hadley will publish anything of it, or for that matter if they would given anyone else the correspondence. By the sounds of it on that matter there has either been a massive misunderstanding or one side is lying. Who knows.
Questions were also asked about training methods (answer: we are unlucky but on top of it..), player psychology (answer: we have in the past but dont currently employ a sports psychologist as it is at the coaches discretion)
I also asked a question about the loss of 1500 members in one year, to be told that 'we have a natural churn of members, and in any case we dont have the resources to manage membership properly..' reading between the lines this basically indicated that they didn't care about membership numbers. One wonders why this is the case.... seems rather odd, unless ulterior motives are at play.
Basically, Hill dominated the meeting quite conclusively, and did not give straight or deep answers on any issue. Brilliant lawyer no doubt, but must wonder whether he is best suited to a footy club, or a secret society. It is my belief that whilst he (and his lackeys Tyler, McKeown & co.) dominate the board, it will be his own little personality cult and incapable of original thought.
Although the members didn't really achieve anything or even really get any relevant info from the meeting, I personally found it interesting just to get an idea of the workings therein.
Struck me as very much a closed shop - an old boys network where the same old heads say the same old things.
Time for some fresh blood, time for some new ideas, and time for a new direction.
In having said that, one must acknowledge the good intentions of the board members. No one doubts that they are as dedicated as any to our club - hell, they were the only people to have the balls (or is it ego?) to run for the board.
On another note, great to meet someone from the board (seems like a champion bloke too, which is a bonus, now dont get a big head.... ;-) ), hope to meet some more of you soon!
Anyways, please put your thoughts here, and if you have any questions just ask.
No real suprises I guess.
The only motion of note on notice was to extend the term for directors to 2 years. It was carried 140-something votes to 40-something, in spite of the best efforts of quite a few in the crowd. Bit of a disappointing result given the need to increase, rather than diminish, the accountability of the board.
Michael Hill was granted Life Membership of the club. Certainly warranted as he has given alot to the club. He does come over rather prickly in person though, to say the least. Very Autocratic style of management was evident. In accepting life membership he made a forceful yet eloquent speech about the history of the club, seeking to put the current troubles into perspective. Surely, however, I was not the only one to see his account not neccessarily as reflecting on triumph over adversity, but as also recounting a history of hand-to-mouth breadline existence, something to not exactly be proud of.
When the floor was opened to questions, it was quite obvious that most everyone was hesitant to speak up, probably mainly due to Hill's total inability to answer a question without sneering at the inquisitor. Questions were asked about Gizmondo (not worded well, but had the right basic question) - basically, Hill said he had handed his paper trail over to Hadley. One wonders if Hadley will publish anything of it, or for that matter if they would given anyone else the correspondence. By the sounds of it on that matter there has either been a massive misunderstanding or one side is lying. Who knows.
Questions were also asked about training methods (answer: we are unlucky but on top of it..), player psychology (answer: we have in the past but dont currently employ a sports psychologist as it is at the coaches discretion)
I also asked a question about the loss of 1500 members in one year, to be told that 'we have a natural churn of members, and in any case we dont have the resources to manage membership properly..' reading between the lines this basically indicated that they didn't care about membership numbers. One wonders why this is the case.... seems rather odd, unless ulterior motives are at play.
Basically, Hill dominated the meeting quite conclusively, and did not give straight or deep answers on any issue. Brilliant lawyer no doubt, but must wonder whether he is best suited to a footy club, or a secret society. It is my belief that whilst he (and his lackeys Tyler, McKeown & co.) dominate the board, it will be his own little personality cult and incapable of original thought.
Although the members didn't really achieve anything or even really get any relevant info from the meeting, I personally found it interesting just to get an idea of the workings therein.
Struck me as very much a closed shop - an old boys network where the same old heads say the same old things.
Time for some fresh blood, time for some new ideas, and time for a new direction.
In having said that, one must acknowledge the good intentions of the board members. No one doubts that they are as dedicated as any to our club - hell, they were the only people to have the balls (or is it ego?) to run for the board.
On another note, great to meet someone from the board (seems like a champion bloke too, which is a bonus, now dont get a big head.... ;-) ), hope to meet some more of you soon!
Anyways, please put your thoughts here, and if you have any questions just ask.
