Election thread V2.0

[mickdo]

now theres hypocrisy, wonder who changed the majority of votes dont rule on that board?

It's still unclear, but as Stagger said at the moment the CEO also gets a vote on the FC board giving the Chairman (Hilditch) the casting vote in a 4-4 tie. 3P does not have control. It's probably one of the few reasons against having the rule that at least 3 members must also be on the other board.

 

[planeteels]

this is absolutely no different to any organisation or company with new owners or directors, and you hear the same "lunch room discussion" what will happen to us, will we keep our jobs...etc.

and it wouldn't surprise me if this was coming from the former board to add fear and uncertainty amongst staff.

i'm not blinded by the fact that it is only natural for such feelings to be apparent.. nor am I blinded by the fact that the FC isn't YET a 3P majority... but..

Has anyone asked the question about why the LC board would give full control of the NRL team back to the FC of which 3P apparently have no majority control over?? hence making it increasingly difficult for the 3P Footy Club board to assert true control over the NRL Team direction.

The only reason there isn't a majority YET is because 1 certain person has a vote which stops that majority being real and if rumours and comments are true, that will most likely cease to be the case sometime in the not too distant future.

 

[cv8z]

i'm not blinded by the fact that it is only natural for such feelings to be apparent.. nor am I blinded by the fact that the FC isn't YET a 3P majority... but..

Has anyone asked the question about why the LC board would give full control of the NRL team back to the FC of which 3P apparently have no majority control over?? hence making it increasingly difficult for the 3P Footy Club board to assert true control over the NRL Team direction.

The only reason there isn't a majority YET is because 1 certain person has a vote which stops that majority being real and if rumours and comments are true, that will most likely cease to be the case sometime in the not too distant future.

One can only hope it won't be in the not too distant future!

 

[mickdo]

i'm not blinded by the fact that it is only natural for such feelings to be apparent.. nor am I blinded by the fact that the FC isn't YET a 3P majority... but..

Has anyone asked the question about why the LC board would give full control of the NRL team back to the FC of which 3P apparently have no majority control over?? hence making it increasingly difficult for the 3P Footy Club board to assert true control over the NRL Team direction.

The transfer of the NRL side back to the FC was discussed publicly well before the FC elections, and before it was discovered that 3P did not actually control it. Any transfer of the NRL side would not occur until both boards agreed to it in any case.

The only reason there isn't a majority YET is because 1 certain person has a vote which stops that majority being real and if rumours and comments are true, that will most likely cease to be the case sometime in the not too distant future.

Only the FC board could sack Fitzgerald as CEO of the FC, not the LC board, so I don't believe the rumours you are referring to are correct

 

[cv8z]

The transfer of the NRL side back to the FC was discussed publicly well before the FC elections, and before it was discovered that 3P did not actually control it. Any transfer of the NRL side would not occur until both boards agreed to it in any case.



Only the FC board could sack Fitzgerald as CEO of the FC, not the LC board, so I don't believe the rumours you are referring to are correct

Even if DF has the final Vote? LOL

 

[bartman]

Only the FC board could sack Fitzgerald as CEO of the FC, not the LC board, so I don't believe the rumours you are referring to are correct

I think it would come down to the employment contract... I'd find it strange if the job was so dileneated between Football and Club duties that the CEO would have two contracts (one with the LC and one with the FC)?

I rather suspoect it is one contract, and would be with the LC, with the FC having asceded to that arrangement. Any changes to that CEO contract (eg change or role, separation of duties etc) would therefore stem from the LC Board, hence the huge focus from 3P of achieving that majority.

I don't think the FC would (also) have to vote to sack the combined LC/FC CEO, if the LC Board took that step. They would need to just play along with the arrangements, as the lesser partner of the two. In this case, I think the CEO vote on the FC Board is irrelevant - and surely the CEO voting on the CEO's future would be excluded on conflict of interest anyway (even if he didn't agree to leave the room).

 

[bartman]

Bart we had a 77% voting majority, that is called clear mandate for change. I told you guys that I would be stepping back after the elections and I am, but I will be coming on here after the AGM, to talk about issues that you have concerns on, and I will voice them to the management. I will not however be privy too, or talking about board matters.

Talk next week.
Sevens.

Thanks for your response Terry, and glad to hear you'll be staying online regularly.

However I have to disagree with this mandate thing. You guys got a 77% of the vote in the election of 4 candidates to the LC spots that weren't already set aside for FC Directors. Your mandate is for change, but as you are hopefully reading here (from others) that mandate doesn't equal a 77% support for changing the constitution after the event....

The only reason you guys didn't get 7 was because you only had one candidate who was an FC Director, and you guys could only got 1 of the 3 spots that under the constitution had to be filled by FC Directors. Simple.

All of the FC Directors would have known this about the coming election, as I understand from the FC Constitution that FC Directors have to nominate if they are standing for the LC elections, so that they are minuted as being eligible for the Special Qualification. John Chidiac would have done this, as would have Hiditch, Gerard, and the unsuccessful Dr Johnson.

Also, I would assume that in the LC Director training course that all cnadidates are required to attend, the constitution and the rules under which the election were to be conducted would have been discussed, probably with reference materials handed out. The goalposts were clear before the election, as I regularly informed you 3P could only get 5 people elected (because only 1 of your 4 FC Directors was an eligible LC member).

I'd imagine that you can try and change it for the future elections (by putting a properly worded motion on notice for both next year's FC & LC AGMs), and provided that enough members think this is something which should be changed... which if you look beyond the people atm there has been no real reason that benefit's the club structure to chnage this. But really there is next to no hope (and imo no mileage) to be gained out of trying to move the election goalposts now, after the kick has been taken.

Put Saad and Sassen on a sub-committee of the Board and let them contribute to the club (and raise their profile) that way. And when the next FC election comes, you need to run them both for that election (along with two of your current LC Directors to cover the Special Consideration in the reverse direction, plus 3 of the 4 current FC Directors), and then Saad and Sassen can benefit from this Special Consideration next time, the way Gerard and Hilditch did this time.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[born an eel]

- and surely the CEO voting on the CEO's future would be excluded on conflict of interest anyway (even if he didn't agree to leave the room).

I read this and had a good laugh :lol:

I think all the board would have a conflict of interest - unless there is some rule about not being able to vote for yourself as CEO.

I would love to be able to vote to sack my boss and then vote myself into his position.

 

[bartman]

I read this and had a good laugh :lol:

I think all the board would have a conflict of interest - unless there is some rule about not being able to vote for yourself as CEO.

I would love to be able to vote to sack my boss and then vote myself into his position.

I'd imagine that under employment law in an organisation this big, that all appointments have to follow due process - criteria for the position, advertisement, recruitment, appointment. At least that's what I see when other positions in the club come vacant - I think the ad for Football Manager was even posted on here?

I didn't see any candidates for election that seemed like club CEO material to me - and I'd be surprised if any of them saw themselves as that at the present time.

 

[born an eel]

yeah, you are probably right.

I just hope it doesn't turn into "jobs for the boys" though

 

[Stagger eel]

quick question, could the LC board vote to relieve Dennis of his duties of the football club without paying him out, leaving him to concentrate on the LC?

 

[fish eel]

quick question, could the LC board vote to relieve Dennis of his duties of the football club without paying him out, leaving him to concentrate on the LC?

ie create another position that reports direct to the FC board on football operations?

I imagine so, but the scope of that job would be pretty small atm, wouldnt it?

 

[bartman]

I wouldn't really know, but assuming that the two "clubs" have some sort of sharing arrangement in place in relation to their staff (eg all the NRL related staff working "in" the FC, but likely to be contracted to the LC, since the NRL Board is actually inside the LC) where all staff are contracted to/by the LC, then yes, the LC Board could start a process where it reviewed the CEO's job spec and duties, in relation to the FC.

I really don't think this type of thing can come down to a simple vote though... I think there would be a contract which details what the CEO is being paid to do, and any changes to that contract need to be negotiated with the employee in the position, under employment law. That would include the "dual role" of the position in relation to Leagues Club matters and Football CLub operations (which aren't many atm, seeing as the NRL & U20s are under the LC).

So all of that takes a hell of a lot of time.... my original estimate for any meaningful changes to the CEO role was about 15 months from this point - which is almost the length of Denis' current contract. The other alternative is to pay him out with one year's salary, which in a time of financial concerns is probably not an option (or not a sensible one).

 

[Stagger eel]

ie create another position that reports direct to the FC board on football operations?

I imagine so, but the scope of that job would be pretty small atm, wouldnt it?

yep that's it, atm the scope would be small however the new position would be created in preparation of handing control of the NRL side back to the football club...

or!

create a position which would predominantly control the NRL side and relinquish Dennis of that responsability.

 

[bartman]

I still think taking away any responsibilities from someone with a current contract (unless by proven misconduct etc) requires a lengthy process of negotiation etc, and can't be done by a vote.

Even if a new position is created alongside, small in scale to start with, then it would assume some duties from the CEO (and probably even have to report to the CEO in the meantime), which also requires changes to the contract/responsibilities, and I would assume also takes time and negotiation and not a vote.

 

[Stagger eel]

I still think taking away any responsibilities from someone with a current contract (unless by proven misconduct etc) requires a lengthy process of negotiation etc, and can't be done by a vote.

Even if a new position is created alongside, small in scale to start with, then it would assume some duties from the CEO (and probably even have to report to the CEO in the meantime), which also requires changes to the contract/responsibilities, and I would assume also takes time and negotiation and not a vote.

ok, so it all depends on his contract/respmsabilities, but what if the negotiation process doesn't include a reduction of his sallary?

 

[bartman]

I think if certain duties are listed in his duty statement (eg football, NRL, whatever), then it would still require negotiation for any changes.

If the negotiation was to include the offer that he could stay on the same salary with reduced duties, then the employee concerned might be more willing to consider it... who wouldn't? :lol:

But Denis is (still) in the box seat as far as his own role/job is concerned, since he is under contract. Unless it's performance or conduct related (which all takes time to set up and follow through), then he gets a say under what conditions his job or salary changes, and as I've always said most probably gets to choose the time and manner (eg one year's salary paid in full) of how he leaves.

 

[SimonTemplar]

I think if certain duties are listed in his duty statement (eg football, NRL, whatever), then it would still require negotiation for any changes.

If the negotiation was to include the offer that he could stay on the same salary with reduced duties, then the employee concerned might be more willing to consider it... who wouldn't? :lol:

But Denis is (still) in the box seat as far as his own role/job is concerned, since he is under contract. Unless it's performance or conduct related (which all takes time to set up and follow through), then he gets a say under what conditions his job or salary changes, and as I've always said most probably gets to choose the time and manner (eg one year's salary paid in full) of how he leaves.

`
`
`
`
I think your logic is correct. If the club is in the dire financial straits we have been led to believe it's in, how could it afford a payout??? Easier to leave him there. Like Jerry Maguire, "show me the money......"
`
`
`
`

 

[mickdo]

If the club is in the dire financial straits we have been led to believe it's in, how could it afford a payout??? Easier to leave him there.

Which is what 3P have been saying all along...

 

[cv8z]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25396876-23209,00.html