Sack Griffin

[Dragon David]

Thank you for the question DD.

I am against it because no matter his background, experience, passion and reputation:

A) He was appointed and not elected, which to me is tacit support for the undemocratic process and regime.

B) He is a hand picked throwback legend type dinosaur, in the same vein as Tim Sheens, Benji and Robbie. I see his undemocratic appointment as another distraction and compliance with the failed old boy matey plan.

C) I have more time for Mr Cook who quit our board because he didn’t want to be part of the ongoing management fiasco. The official story is very different.

Not worshiping club legends is not a popular position amongst my peers but some agree with me.

If the process itself is corrupted then all bets are off and the WT board is basically exploiting Mr Dorahy’s good name and reputation to justify its incompetence and legitimate itself.

I am pleased that the board is getting the message and doing something, although it’s remedy is too little and too late and it doesn’t address the systemic dodgyness and ineptitude of a board that is way out of its depth and doesn’t have a clue.

John has made a conscious decision to compromise himself and ruin his legacy. A matter for him. He is obviously not familiar with and lost touch with the common people.

Thanks again.

Thanks for your comments Silverdale and now it's back to the Forum!

 

[Mojo]

You all realise that the board need to agree unanimously about coaching decisions? Hence, asking this board to hire someone quickly is like searching for a dodo bird.

And the fact Doust doesn’t like Flanno just screws the club leaving them with no choice and makes it harder to be unanimous due to his stubbornness

Genuine question: can you please tell me what the claim of the need for a 'unanimous' decision is based upon? I've heard it stated on numerous occasions. It would be extremely strange that any decision by any Board would have to be unanimous.

 

[Mojo]

It's not unusual for the board to reach a consensus and then vote unanimously. Dissention is almost unheard of.

That's my view too. Consensus and non-dissent once the decision has been made isn't the same as requiring a unanimous vote. The latter being what most people are asserting.

 

[jodragon40]

In my work life (now retired) thank God I was fortunate to make middle management in a public sector job. The language being used by our board reminds me of the times at work where nobody wanted to make a difficult decision it was announced that we haven't been able to reach a unanimous decision but we are making progress and will continue to endeavour to ensure that we continue to converse with each other until we finally get to a unanimous concencus. In other words we had NFI what we were actually going to do. Sounds Familiar??

 

[redv13]

In my work life (now retired) thank God I was fortunate to make middle management in a public sector job. The language being used by our board reminds me of the times at work where nobody wanted to make a difficult decision it was announced that we haven't been able to reach a unanimous decision but we are making progress and will continue to endeavour to ensure that we continue to converse with each other until we finally get to a unanimous concencus. In other words we had NFI what we were actually going to do. Sounds Familiar??

Let’s face it, these tight arses running our club don’t want to pay the $$$ to remove Griffin then pay the $$$ to bring in a new coach. We are run like a pub team. Absolute disgrace this mob

 

[jodragon40]

Let’s face it, these tight arses running our club don’t want to pay the $$$ to remove Griffin then pay the $$$ to bring in a new coach. We are run like a pub team. Absolute disgrace this mob

It's all about the money

 

[possm]

Genuine question: can you please tell me what the claim of the need for a 'unanimous' decision is based upon? I've heard it stated on numerous occasions. It would be extremely strange that any decision by any Board would have to be unanimous.

Self-imposed madness. They should get on with the job of making the best decisions that benefit the interests of the Club, not political alignment.

 

[Illusion]

Self-imposed madness. They should get on with the job of making the best decisions that benefit the interests of the Club, not political alignment.

This is always going to be a problem , I have had enough of their bullsh*t , draw straws and who ever wins runs the joint , Either the St George side or the Illawarra side of the Joint Venture ......

 

[Mojo]

This is always going to be a problem , I have had enough of their bullsh*t , draw straws and who ever wins runs the joint , Either the St George side or the Illawarra side of the Joint Venture ......

However, it may not be correct. As far as I know it started from a Hooper 'blurt'. I think the thing about Doust being anti-Flan had the same origin. I want to know what substantiates these claims. My suspicion - (just that) is that both assertions are incorrect. Boards will often require non-dissent in public once simple majority decisions are made. I suspect someone told Hopper: 'once there's a decision the Board will be unanimous in support of the new coach, but Doust isn't keen on Flan'. This would be quite normal and appropriate. I doubt that there is a Board charter, or even a request from the Chair, that there must be unanimity.

 

[slippery5]

‘We’ll see how much the players care about their coach’: Anzac Day boilover all that can save Griffin

‘We’ll see how much the players care about their coach’: Anzac Day boilover all that can save Griffin

www.foxsports.com.au

Let's not back our future on a "one game's result".
like McNoidea constant selection of Latimore & Lafai lets not forget the continual selection of Norman & co.

 

[ChocOConnor]

In what world other than a dictatorship does a board not think of what is best for the club and in the interests of its members, the public. These self serving clowns that have been on the board should be at ICAC under investigation for 1 thing alone as to how the club sold a 50% share to WIN group and what was its offer and compare them to whatever else was offered. On what grounds did the board decide that WIN group was a better fit for the club and the people they represented. I’d be glad to see some of them having breakfast with Eddie Obeid in the lounges of the long bay Hilton

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

In what world other than a dictatorship does a board not think of what is best for the club and in the interests of its members, the public. These self serving clowns that have been on the board should be at ICAC under investigation for 1 thing alone as to how the club sold a 50% share to WIN group and what was its offer and compare them to whatever else was offered. On what grounds did the board decide that WIN group was a better fit for the club and the people they represented. I’d be glad to see some of them having breakfast with Eddie Obeid in the lounges of the long bay Hilton

They have a sense of entitlement in that they honestly consider their decisions are better than others, because they consider themselves superior.

And of course, when they are found out, the mismanaged boards belt on with spin and distractions often supported by vested interests who write upbeat media stories about hope and change.

Hope and change that almost never eventuates and our clubs ignore multiple promises, deny failure and get “ comfortable being uncomfortable” as Mary so eloquently put it.

They would rather lord it over us in a losing battle than hand the reins over to competent people. It’s an extremely selfish position which is hurting so many people and depriving us of opportunities to get out of our ruts.

If I’m on an nrl board, mateship goes out the window and I try to hire the top ceo, recruiters and supporting officials.

All bets are off for the roster, coach, trainers, ball kids. All dickheads are gone in 2 weeks.

This is what Brisbane did ( except dickhead retention) and why they are succeeding.

And I’d introduce changes in the constitution to enable the rank and file to sack me. I’d want to know I’m there because I am supported and not there because I am a dodgy wheeling dealing scumbag. Not when it comes to footy anyways.

 

[Dragon David]

In what world other than a dictatorship does a board not think of what is best for the club and in the interests of its members, the public. These self serving clowns that have been on the board should be at ICAC under investigation for 1 thing alone as to how the club sold a 50% share to WIN group and what was its offer and compare them to whatever else was offered. On what grounds did the board decide that WIN group was a better fit for the club and the people they represented. I’d be glad to see some of them having breakfast with Eddie Obeid in the lounges of the long bay Hilton

Totally agree Choc with what you have said in all respects. How this self centred mob have gotten away with "shonky deals" is beyond me.

Is each one on the Board that arrogant to allow our once mighty name DRAGONS to hit the bottom of the shit pit? Why can't they have the good sense to put their differences to one side so that they can bring the club back up into the fresh air and get us breathing FIRE again?

I was thinking exactly the same as you Choc about ICAC. I wish there was a tragic Dragons fan amongst any of them in ICAC to get this Board investigated?

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Totally agree Choc with what you have said in all respects. How this self centred mob have gotten away with "shonky deals" is beyond me.

Is each one on the Board that arrogant to allow our once mighty name DRAGONS to hit the bottom of the shit pit? Why can't they have the good sense to put their differences to one side so that they can bring the club back up into the fresh air and get us breathing FIRE again?

I was thinking exactly the same as you Choc about ICAC. I wish there was a tragic Dragons fan amongst any of them in ICAC to get this Board investigated?

Anyone can try to report something suspect to ICAC DD, but the organisation or person has to qualify under the ICAC rules.

And then you have to get them to investigate.

I’ve done it before, but they were not interested.

I also had the written evidence of the dodgyness not just a suspicion.

I can’t identify the person because I don’t want to get caught up in a defamation thing.

But I forced him to step down from the matter, so it was a victory in that way.

Officials can get carried away with themselves and think they are untouchable.

Dad used to say Australian management was generally garbage compared with other western countries overseas. Very self serving.

 

[Dragon David]

Anyone can try to report something suspect to ICAC DD, but the organisation or person has to qualify under the ICAC rules.

And then you have to get them to investigate.

I’ve done it before, but they were not interested.

I also had the written evidence of the dodgyness not just a suspicion.

I can’t identify the person because I don’t want to get caught up in a defamation thing.

But I forced him to step down from the matter, so it was a victory in that way.

Officials can get carried away with themselves and think they are untouchable.

Dad used to say Australian management was generally garbage compared with other western countries overseas. Very self serving.

Thanks Silverdale for your comments.

Good that you had that victory but yeah, I can see that it would be a hard thing to do to have ICAC investigate our Board.

 

[Mojo]

1. ICAC has no authority to investigate anything outside the public sector,
2. ASIC is the authority that deals with corporate bodies in the private sector,
3. Both bodies are pretty toothless because proving corruption is extremely difficult, time-consuming and costly,
4. StGI Rugby League Football Club is a Pty Ltd (ie; private) company,
5. Private companies rarely, if ever, have a formal requirement to elect, rotate and re-elect directors, because they're privately owned ie; the owners appoint the directors they want,
6. Members of sporting clubs aren't shareholders in the ownership of the club,
7. ASIC will not investigate assertions of corruption without very substantive evidence.

 

[Dragon David]

1. ICAC has no authority to investigate anything outside the public sector,
2. ASIC is the authority that deals with corporate bodies in the private sector,
3. Both bodies are pretty toothless because proving corruption is extremely difficult, time-consuming and costly,
4. StGI Rugby League Football Club is a Pty Ltd (ie; private) company,
5. Private companies rarely, if ever, have a formal requirement to elect, rotate and re-elect directors, because they're privately owned ie; the owners appoint the directors they want,
6. Members of sporting clubs aren't shareholders in the ownership of the club,
7. ASIC will not investigate assertions of corruption without very substantive evidence.

Thanks Mojo.

Give investigation a miss then but there must be something that can make the club a go to one?

Look at the Roosters. They not only want their men's team to be the best each year, they want the women's team also to be the best and that is what I want our club to aspire to.

All it takes is to have a formidable squad of players who are mostly at the top of their game and when appropriate, like when players reach "the end of their good football life" and go to Super League or retire, the Club works ages in advance to see who they should go for to replace them and they usually get their man or woman.

Do our current members of the Board want that for our club? I'm certainly hoping they do and if so, why don't they work properly as a team to get it done?

 

[This Year?]

I love the theory that the coach coached footy out of the players.

FMD tackling is tackling, catching is catching, holding onto the ball is holding onto the ball, ill disciplined is ill disciplined, being dumb is being dumb, being selfish is being selfish and all of this is on the individual most especially the senior players.

Arm grabbing, fumbling, ill discipline and dumb arse penalties happens in all teams regardless of the coach but what we have is not just an individual doing it we have a plethora doing it game in game out and it costs us big time.

When the good teams have days of repeated issues as listed above they also look very ordinary and can be beaten sometimes quite convincingly. So did their coach coach that out of them that day or did the players decide that they need to concentrate on the basics better?

We have had for a very long time players running the show and not coaches and or the football department. Maybe player managers have us by the knackers who knows?

Maybe our split identity leads to the split personality that the team offers up every year because there is no doubt at different times we do see that our team can play good footy and has the skills that people keep saying we don't have.

Overall IMO we lack heart and commitment more than anything else and we have become a semi retirement place for players and officials and that is because we are neither St George nor Illawarra and have no will or idea as to how to fix that.

TBH our basics are so bad that I can't blame any coach saying do the bread and butter things well and then you can start to expand into other things FMD we use moldy bread and melted butter, drop it all on the floor and then tread in it.

Blame Hook all you want but we are being avoided by coaches and players alike and it's been that way for a very long time and even Bennett had to bring a lot of outside interests in to win the comp in 2010 and I still wonder to this day that if the Storm had of been playing for points that year if we in fact would have actually broken our drought and what people would have said about Bennett if we didn't win?

We wouldn't have won. The Storm had our measure and would have beaten us in the Preliminary or Grand Final. Our drought would still be going and we'd hate Bennett like Knights fans do.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

I just think the NRL if it’s able to issue and rescind licences, should place a few conditions on the governance aspect of clubs.

I can’t see any of the clubs agreeing though.

They’d form another SuperLeague thing to stay in power.

 

[jodragon40]

Gee whiz everyone who selected the Titans would have been counting a win. Now that is the difference between a united team led by an astute coach and our rabble of a divided team led by a bumbling board room