Roy Spagnolo on 2SM sometime after 4

[Stagger eel]

but at the end of the day a 5-2 split means they have very little say or vote against doesnt it...

technically yes, however having 2 there from the old guard could be seen to be keeping the new brigade in line, in may not be a bad thing.

 

[parra-all-the-way]

thats right fish eel, i was responding in relation to spiderdan saying that the two existing board members provide accountability and external advice, to which i was saying it doesnt matter now becasue they have the control to do what they want.

 

[mickdo]

But the members voted for 7 zip.

Doesnt seem very democratic to then say, 'sorry, you didnt vote these two guys on but you'll have them for two years'.

I wouldt mind having Gerard on the board, he did some hard yards on the weekend, but just didnt get the support.

Oh look, I don't dispute what you're saying... I just think 5-2 would be a better make up for the next board that's all

 

[parra-all-the-way]

technically yes, however having 2 there from the old guard could be seen to be keeping the new brigade in line, in may not be a bad thing.

Hey stagger, i do agree with that, could be good for the experience and why decisions where made previoulsy etc etc.

 

[mickdo]

technically yes, however having 2 there from the old guard could be seen to be keeping the new brigade in line, in may not be a bad thing.

my sentiments exactly. having said that, I can fully understand 3P wanting to change it.

 

[strider]

so can someone explain to me why at the AGM I should NOT vote to over turn this rule?

because it is a small step in ensuring that the LC board is never totally over-run by a bid to just gain control of the building and neglect footy all together .... not an impossible scenario - clubs have been virtually stolen before (altho not clubs quite so big I don't think)

 

[fish eel]

Oh look, I don't dispute what you're saying... I just think 5-2 would be a better make up for the next board that's all

I see it may be a better make up, I just keep coming back to the will of the people that bothered to vote on the weekend.

I'd also hazard a guess 90% of those that voted did so without knowing about this rule, and voted simply for the 7 people they want on the board.

Does this really give us anything going forward other than a feel good notion of having two guys on the board to keep the majority in check?

 

[fish eel]

OK, 10 points for Strider for a pretty bloody good answer.

Stagger Eels owes you a beer now.

 

[Stagger eel]

OK, 10 points for Strider for a pretty bloody good answer.

Stagger Eels owes you a beer now.

I think you've spent too much time with the ALP...

 

[strider]

\\\\/

 

[Stagger eel]

\\\\/

what flavour cordial do you do you want??

 

[Twizzle]

Thing that got me, was that they are looking at naming rights for Parramatta Stadium. Can anyone else bring themselves to call it something else???

I just hope it isnt something "ANZ Stadium" or "CUA Stadium"....

yeah, I'd go with Cumberland Oval

 

[strider]

what flavour cordial do you do you want??

red :crazy: :crazy:

 

[bartman]

Does this really give us anything going forward other than a feel good notion of having two guys on the board to keep the majority in check?

Structurally, it ensures that there are two (actually 3) Directors from the FC on the LC Board. Given this forum's focus on getting the league back in the club, you'd think that would be seen as a good thing.

The two directors in question could well have been 3P candidates benefiting from this rule (and adding to the majority), if only 3Ps other FC Directors were actually LC members... When thinking about this rule, I believe it's better to think beyond the "team issues" and to look at the pros and cons of the structure alone.

 

[mickdo]

I'd also hazard a guess 90% of those that voted did so without knowing about this rule, and voted simply for the 7 people they want on the board.

Well yes, but ignorance is never an excuse :lol:

 

[fish eel]

Structurally, it ensures that there are two (actually 3) Directors from the FC on the LC Board. Given this forum's focus on getting the league back in the club, you'd think that would be seen as a good thing.

The two directors in question could well have been 3P candidates benefiting from this rule (and adding to the majority), if only 3Ps other FC Directors were actually LC members... When thinking about this rule, I believe it's better to think beyond the "team issues" and to look at the pros and cons of the structure alone.

I honestly havent made my mind up on this one, but striders short and sharp answer is pretty good I reckon.

Well yes, but ignorance is never an excuse :lol:

Except at our club, where we keep things like that a secret unless you want to go digging :lol:

 

[Gronk]

yeah, I'd go with Cumberland Oval

Would have to be Cumberland Rectangle now.

 

[bartman]

ok...it probably wasn't explained that well by myself but 3P won a clean sweep 7 tickets on board, however the constitution states that you need to carry 3 board members accross from the football club onto the leagues club board therefore with Chidiac being the only board member elected for both, the bottom 2 elected members need to drop off in the place of the 2 highest FC directors in this case being Gerard 10th and Hilditch 8th placed.

I'm sorry if that confuses you even more but maybe Barty or someone else can do a better job than I can to explain it.

btw, this rule has been in place for 1959 apparently

Sounds like a clear explanation to me Staggs.

Another way of looking at it Pete is that this was two elections - one for three LC spots "saved" for FC Directors, with only four guys contesting it. And the other for the remaining four LC spots, with everyone contesting it and the highest 4 remaining winning out.

It's all kind of like affirmative action - where a quota system is employed to ensure a certain % of representation of a certain group of people. Once I stood for an election where there were 7 spots available, but a rule in place that 25% had to be women. I knew the rule before I stood, ended up coming 6th, and was "replaced" by lower scoring candidates to make the quota.

I simply accepted the decision, because I knew it wasn't personal, I knew what I had to achieve votes-wise (top 5) and failed. Some people were upset about my plight, but I didn't think I had any entitlement to be there, and the people voting were voting under that structure as well (whether they bothered to find out or knew about it or not).

Ended up I was "looked after" anyway, ended up on some sub-committees and made a contribution and ended up parlaying those expereinces into my first full-time job. Saad and Sassen didn't get themselves into the top 5 like they needed to here, so maybe they can just be involved in committee work, make their contributions, and we can get on with moving forward positively with our club, rather than have 3P try to move the election goalposts in retrospect, just for ego sake...

 

[HIghlands Fling]

3P have links to the Commonwealth Bank and OAMPS, so I suggest they would be the companies they are looking at for Stadium naming rights sponsorship or even jersey sponsorship.

 

[Delboy]

Mickdo, the 3 football club board members on the Leagues Club board has always been the case, even myself in the older age bracket was aware that this was in place.

Actually this condition was regarded as important in ensuring that the will of the football club would always have a voice, structurally sound and if the 3P had got enough members over the line at the football club elections this would not be raised.

The 5-2 split still favours the 3P ticket, and makes sure that Hilditch and Gerard as ex players have some say, isn't that part of what this was all about.

You realise that they can now separate the NRl Ceo and Leagues CLub CEO roles, as they have the votes to do it. DF would then be consigned to running the Leagues CLub and making sure it is run well, and we could have a CEO to concentrate on football operations etc. Sounds good to me, and DF then has to make a decision if he continues with a reduced role, probably initially not a reduced salary.