Now for the Board's Breach Notices

[Objective One]

Is it about time the members delivered breach notices to the Board for multiple breaches of their fiduciary responsibilites to members? Some potential issues that bear thinking about?:

1. failure to negotiate a sufficiently robust contract with CA to give clear termination rights based on performance criteria (position on table, fines from NRL, nepotism for his and Board members sons, etc) that will now cost $400-?K when it should have been $0

2. breaches of confidentiaity in permitting then failing to investigate and censure leaks to press from within the Board

3. unauthorised benefits to Directors through attempted free utilisation of paid player transportation

4. undisclosed ? related party contracts with relatives in key club positions including reinstatement after termination by then incumbant coach

5. termination of CA's contract for basically all the same types of reasons that his previous appointments at Canterbury and Melbourne ended (fights with the board over key players, fights over CA's sons on the playing roster, fines from the NRL, etc , etc) - there was fair warning of all this for the Board before they employed him, they either should not have employed him if they didn't want a repeat or they should have insisted on specific zero cost termination provisions in his contract in the event that similar issues arose. Prima facie question of negligence arises.

etc, etc,

There are plenty of litigation funder firms around that may have a go at this one for little or no upfront payment if some members wanted to band together. This is no light hearted matter. The members stand to loose A$400K on up through this - it is YOUR money members NOT the Board's, they are supposed to do a competent job of managing it on YOUR behalf. If they have not done a proper job of that, they are potentially liable. Whether or not they are insured for that liability will depend on the terms of any Directors' and Officers' insurance they or the club may have in place and, if so, whether their conduct creates any exclusion of liability arguments for the insurers.

An alternative may be for the Board to do the right thing and resign on mass acknowledging their particiaption in this whole sorry saga means tha mamabers and the club will be best served by an entirely new regime to carry the club forward.

 

[Frenzy]

Interesting.

 

[The Popper]

Once again you've dazzled us, OO. From my limited knowledge of such situations you are absolutely right.
Maybe resignation en masse is the preferred option. With the Gow Affair, the Anderson Affair, and the possibility of a Development stuff up...what next?
Meanwhile club members are left with the mess? This mob will really have to do some expert mopping up or fancy footwork to get back in the good books IMO. I certainly hope there are some strong contenders for their positions come next Feb. Albeit, the block vote they have arranged is mighty hard to overcome.

 

[Jimbo]

6. Complete failure to organise the redevelopment which was supposed to secure our future, and which under a more capable administration would be almost finished by now...

 

[Bastard Squad]

I may be on my own in this opinion, but it isn't the whole board I want replaced, just the one who's been in charge of the board though this debacle.

The President shouldn't run the club, thats the CEO/GM job, the Board is there to approve or deny the CEO's major decisions (by a majority vote) and make sure they are carried through appropriately.

I'm sure there are some dead wood on the board, but which ? What I do know though is that the President has failed in his duty of care on many fronts with his hands-on approach. This is one of the reasons I don't want Gow back on the board, its not the job of the Board President to run things, but there seems to be an ongoing Club perspective that that's what the president does.

Times have changed, and so have the corporate goverance laws. Time we changed to a President who knows his place in the scheme of things.

If the head changes, the body will follow.

 

[Morpheus]

That is the finest , most precise post I have seen here .

Well done and I agree on all points, plus the one Jimbo added.

 

[Mr Angry]

4 & 6 Concern me most, mainly 6.
This board has been tainted - no doubt. Strong alternatives needed.

5. termination of CA's contract for basically all the same types of reasons that his previous appointments at Canterbury and Melbourne ended (fights with the board over key players, fights over CA's sons on the playing roster, fines from the NRL, etc , etc) - there was fair warning of all this for the Board before they employed him, they either should not have employed him if they didn't want a repeat or they should have insisted on specific zero cost termination provisions in his contract in the event that similar issues arose. Prima facie question of negligence arises.

Having sacked him, maybe the board has an ace up their sleave in the form of guarantees from CA reguarding specifically some of the above. Having not seen the finer details of his contract I can only presume the board has something as they sacked him.
Have you seen his contract in a board leak? ;-)

 

[Dean Moriarty]

I may be on my own in this opinion, but it isn't the whole board I want replaced, just the one who's been in charge of the board though this debacle.

The President shouldn't run the club, thats the CEO/GM job, the Board is there to approve or deny the CEO's major decisions (by a majority vote) and make sure they are carried through appropriately.

I'm sure there are some dead wood on the board, but which ? What I do know though is that the President has failed in his duty of care on many fronts with his hands-on approach. This is one of the reasons I don't want Gow back on the board, its not the job of the Board President to run things, but there seems to be an ongoing Club perspective that that's what the president does.

Times have changed, and so have the corporate goverance laws. Time we changed to a President who knows his place in the scheme of things.

If the head changes, the body will follow.

IMO the whole structure of the club's management must be reviewed. You've mentioned the biggest problem but there are others. For example, who is responsible for what players we have? The CEO at the moment. But the head coach is the one who has to decide on all the other playing issues. It seems weird to me. Who would make the equivalent decisions at Manchester United? The CEO or Sir Alex Ferguson? Ferguson of course. Which is the better run club - Cronulla Sharks or Manchester United? :roll:

The way the board is elected at present means they come as a package. For that reason, I think they all have to fall on the sword. Possibly some of them would be good candidates for re-election, but on their own merits, not as part of a the current cabal.

 

[millersnose]

3. unauthorised benefits to Directors through attempted free utilisation of paid player transportation

lol

i hope it is a joke

 

[King of the Hill]

:lol:
That's what I was thinking millers.

But in the interests of the enthusiasm and back-slapping happening in this thread, I thought I'd let it through to the keeper!

 

[Objective One]

:lol:
That's what I was thinking millers.

But in the interests of the enthusiasm and back-slapping happening in this thread, I thought I'd let it through to the keeper!

I have no knowledge whether it happened or not so it is total hearsay so far as I am concerned. BUT, if it happened, no, I am not joking. Was this a benefit offered to all members or disclosed to all members as a benefit made available to Directors? Who pays for members to travel to and from games - the club or the members themselves? It might amount to petrol money or train fare ($ diddly), it might have been going on for a long time, it might seem trivial, but what benefit did members get from Directors receiving this (undisclosed?) benefit? Who was in the right and who was in the wrong if this incident did occur - or were BOTH sides in the wrong. Has there been too much "enthusiasm and back-slapping" going on with the Board for too long and is it time for some higher standards?

 

[King of the Hill]

It would have been more expensive for the club AFTER Anderson demanded the board get off the bus. That said I agree with Ando's will to just have the players on the bus...though I disagreed with his confrontational style. Would he have shown that disrespect to Bullfrog?

I know that when I travel for work (after originally arriving at the office having paid my own way) my boss picks up the tab, whether it be by taxi or plane or my own petrol money.

It's nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[Jimbo]

It would have been more expensive for the club AFTER Anderson demanded the board get off the bus. That said I agree with Ando's will to just have the players on the bus...though I disagreed with his confrontational style. Would he have shown that disrespect to Bullfrog?

Probably not, because Bullfrog deserved more respect.

 

[Objective One]

Bingo SS!! Your BOSS picks up his EMPLOYEE'S travel expenses for work trips. Does your firm's Board travel with you for free on your work trips? I am talking about the executive and non-executive line that seems not to exist at the Sharks. Don't get me wrong, I am NO CA apologist (if you are familiar with my posts here and elsewhere, I am sure you would agree) so if this happended I am sure like everything else it was very much "two tangoing". But, my point is that this whole sorry, sorry episode took just that - two sides tangoing - and real questions remain as to whether everyone responsible has paid their dues or we have only just begun to collect them.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

It would have been more expensive for the club AFTER Anderson demanded the board get off the bus. That said I agree with Ando's will to just have the players on the bus...though I disagreed with his confrontational style. Would he have shown that disrespect to Bullfrog?

Probably not, because Bullfrog deserved more respect.

spoken like a true Dogs supporter.

try here. More people like you. www.bulldogs.com.au

 

[Jimbo]

Yeah, whatever Reefer.

More people like you in here ---> www.dragons.com.au

 

[Macca]

Thats a bit rough, Reefy, coming from a Panther's supporter. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Dragon Slayer]

Just typical.....A brilliant post by Objective One and Black Tip Goofey has to play cowboys and Indians. :roll:

Objective One I couldn't of summed up the situation any better. How members of the board can all sit pretty after numerous fiascos is beyond me. The 'In House' appointments in the past and present are dangerous for the club..................If the suggested candidates for certain positions are supposedly suited to the jobs why not advertise externally and pitch them with the rest. If their superior they should still come through wouldn't they?

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Objective One I couldn't of summed up the situation any better.

Thats right.

How members of the board can all sit pretty after numerous fiascos is beyond me.

ever thought that after realising the original mistake, the enitire "saga" ran entirely to script?

The 'In House' appointments in the past and present are dangerous for the club..................If the suggested candidates for certain positions are supposedly suited to the jobs why not advertise externally and pitch them with the rest. If their superior they should still come through wouldn't they?

What in house appointments?
theo Burgess? Steve Rogers? Stu Raper? Malouf? Pierce?
to me that looks like a reshuffle of Andersons team.

 

[King of the Hill]

theo Burgess? Steve Rogers? Stu Raper? Malouf? Pierce?
to me that looks like a reshuffle of Andersons team.

ooh yeah reefy
good point
that Dr peter malouf is poison i tellsya
and sludge, what's he ever done for us?!