Without trying to sound to knowledgeable the usual convention is that boards are democratic in respect of voting but when the decision is announced it is supposed to be somewhat unanimous and Doust would be well within his rights not to divulge how he voted or cross the line by dissenting in public.
Yep, i totally agree OT.
What i was getting at though, is Dousts' dual roles if we can call it that. One as a board member and the other as a CEO. He votes as a board member at which point he can cast an "against" vote to a certain motion, however, if that motion is passed, then as CEO he has to deliver it even if he has voted against it in the first place. Therefore with Mary, i believe he voted against his appointment but the motion was carried and Doust had to deliver it in his capacity as CEO.
The other option he had was to say. "i believe this is a poor decision which is not in the best interest of the club and therefore i will not be part of it and therefore hereby tender my resignation".
He has shown that he is prepared to deliver whatever motions are passed by the board even though he may not agree with them, so in response to Denis Prestons post that perhaps he has learnt his lesson, my original post was just suggesting that i don't believe anything will change. If the board unanimously vote to replace Mary with let's say Michael Hagan, even if Doust votes against his appointment, he will still remain as CEO and tell us what an exciting future we have with Hagan and how we are now on the path to success. Yes, i fully understand a CEO's role and as a CEO you are not always going to agree completely with all decisions of the board. But there comes a time when certain decisions go so far against what you truly believe in that you just have to say, "f**k it, i don't want my name attached to this inevitable train wreck, i'm out". I don't believe Doust has that sort of integrity within him.
Anyway, rant over, just give me a new coach and i'll shut up