Should Red V Mebers have voting rights?

[possm]

Should Red V Members have Voting Rights?
For Board Membership
For Sale of the Club

 

[justadragon]

Absolutely, but it will never happen, how many on the board would be there now if we had voting rights and that is exactly why it will never happen.

 

[muzby]

Have the bandsaws become sentient beings?

 

[dannyt]

Have the bandsaws become sentient beings?
View attachment 64295

If parallel universes exist, the answer is yes.

 

[muzby]

If parallel universes exist, the answer is yes.

They’d still provide more input than the current board TBH

 

[AyiosYiorgos]

No after thinking about it, no, supporters require Chaos within their clubs, this keeps them emotionally invested in the club, hoping one day we reign supreme again, imagine having voting rights, which would add pressure to the board, coach and players knowing that if one of those groups fails they could be out of a job, this would add pressure of them to actually achieve desired results and possibly losing their jobs if they fail and what about the supporters, what would we do if we were a successful club, constantly winning games, the forum/facebook etc would become a ghost towns, Supporters would be too happy, we can't have that, so lets keep the status quo, let the board milk the club for whats it worth...

 

[Mr Angry]

Haha, you think members have rights.

You are owned buy the family who owns WIN media.

Rusty owns $ouths...

Carry on children who know nothing.

 

[randomdragon]

No they shouldn’t have voting rights

 

[Unsainty79]

That would require significant constitutional change for both the joint venture and leagues clubs. It would be almost unheard of in any privately owned company. And if you're suggesting that members get to vote on decisions, that is the same thing as a Board of Directors.

I think you could probably advocate for a sub-committee comprised of some members; however, they would never have voting rights. You would have to also have some kindly of tightly wound rule/constitution around the election of this anyway. You would also not have any right to any kind of sensitive or personal information about the Club or personnel

 

[justadragon]

That would require significant constitutional change for both the joint venture and leagues clubs. It would be almost unheard of in any privately owned company. And if you're suggesting that members get to vote on decisions, that is the same thing as a Board of Directors.

I think you could probably advocate for a sub-committee comprised of some members; however, they would never have voting rights. You would have to also have some kindly of tightly wound rule/constitution around the election of this anyway. You would also not have any right to any kind of sensitive or personal information about the Club or personnel

works for the bulldogs

 

[dannyt]

Haha, you think members have rights.

You are owned buy the family who owns WIN media.

Rusty owns $ouths...

Carry on children who know nothing.

Wrong on at least one count.

We know the members DO NOT have rights.

We are garnering opinions on whether members SHOULD HAVE rights.

We all know it will not make one scrap of difference, but this is a discussion forum.

Perhaps read what's happening before offering "sagely" advice.

 

[Unsainty79]

works for the bulldogs

Sorry, what? That club has had significant periods infighting, board members throwing tantrums and had commenced legal proceedings against one another.

And I think you'll find the 'fans/members' on the board of Bulldogs are also corporate partners.

 

[denis preston]

Sorry, what? That club has had significant periods infighting, board members throwing tantrums and had commenced legal proceedings against one another.

And I think you'll find the 'fans/members' on the board of Bulldogs are also corporate partners.

Exactly, whilst I think perhaps one elected board member from Red V votes would be nice in having a small say, be careful on what you wish for as the Bulldogs model is fraught with danger & disharmony.

 

[Willow]

There's nothing stopping anyone here becoming a voting member of St George Leagues Club. After three years of continuous membership, you can raise an agenda and vote. If you get organised, you can vote as a block. This could mean anything from improvements to membership access to changing the board members. St George are 50% of the JV and in this case your vote actually counts.

 

[justadragon]

Exactly, whilst I think perhaps one elected board member from Red V votes would be nice in having a small say, be careful on what you wish for as the Bulldogs model is fraught with danger & disharmony.

Agreed yes they were a mess but if the board members are corporate partners then that to me should spell success and ousting non performance. Now that gould is at the helm watch out I reckon, they will go a few places other than getting some crap review, not to mention their recruiting that has been happening, bulldogs are now going places whilst we cant manage what we have, we will be left way behind next year.

 

[justadragon]

There's nothing stopping anyone here becoming a voting member of St George Leagues Club. After three years of continuous membership, you can raise an agenda and vote. If you get organised, you can vote as a block. This could mean anything from improvements to membership access to changing the board members. St George are 50% of the JV and in this case your vote actually counts.

True but we cant touch the Illawarra side, is that correct ??

 

[dannyt]

There's nothing stopping anyone here becoming a voting member of St George Leagues Club. After three years of continuous membership, you can raise an agenda and vote. If you get organised, you can vote as a block. This could mean anything from improvements to membership access to changing the board members. St George are 50% of the JV and in this case your vote actually counts.

I do recall, in years gone by, that we tried to recruit forum members who were leagues club members to unite and make some changes. Scuttled by Saunders or Robinson? Perhaps we could do something similar with more cloak and dagger.

 

[I'm Hornby]

I don't understand how or why supporters of a football team should have a direct say in how that team is run or managed.

In my mind if you've made a conscious decision to be a supporter of that team (which we all have at one point in time) you base that decision on the fact that you agree that the team is playing well or being run well or at least to a standard where you can see it changing for the better.

If the above is not the case, then your right as someone who has made the decision to support the team, is to no longer support the team. Perhaps you'll find another team that my second paragraph applies to and you then can rightfully change your mind and support that team instead.

Whilst I understand many of us have our own personal reasons for being supporters and deep rooted emotional connections to the team, unfortunately this doesn't entitle you to anything. I liken this to other things in life, such as if you're a loyal customer of a particular business and that business changes the way it does things for what you perceive to be for the worse, do you then get to run the business yourself and change it? The answer is no, instead you will more than likely find another business that does things how you would like them.

So overall I believe it's everyone's own choice to support this team, if you're not happy with the direction it's going then reevaluate that choice to save yourself the heart ache and frustration.

 

[Gourley's Socks]

I don't understand how or why supporters of a football team should have a direct say in how that team is run or managed.

In my mind if you've made a conscious decision to be a supporter of that team (which we all have at one point in time) you base that decision on the fact that you agree that the team is playing well or being run well or at least to a standard where you can see it changing for the better.

If the above is not the case, then your right as someone who has made the decision to support the team, is to no longer support the team. Perhaps you'll find another team that my second paragraph applies to and you then can rightfully change your mind and support that team instead.

Whilst I understand many of us have our own personal reasons for being supporters and deep rooted emotional connections to the team, unfortunately this doesn't entitle you to anything. I liken this to other things in life, such as if you're a loyal customer of a particular business and that business changes the way it does things for what you perceive to be for the worse, do you then get to run the business yourself and change it? The answer is no, instead you will more than likely find another business that does things how you would like them.

So overall I believe it's everyone's own choice to support this team, if you're not happy with the direction it's going then reevaluate that choice to save yourself the heart ache and frustration.

I understand what you're saying and I find it an interesting take but our bonds with teams aren't rational. Indeed, the tribal nature of sport absolutely requires that we are bound by emotional connections that don't fully stand to reason. If this weren't the case then franchise sport wouldn't exist - or at least, not in any way recognisable to us all.

So while taking your business elsewhere is a perfectly logical response, I don't think it applies in sport.

I do think though that member voting rights could be compared to being a shareholder of a public company. You get a vote once per year that usually does pretty much nothing but the mechanism is in place to potentially arrest those major missteps: eg 7 years of Mary or the WIN buyout.

But this is a long way from constantly reviewing every minute decision - boards don't do that let alone shareholders/members.

 

[I'm Hornby]

I understand what you're saying and I find it an interesting take but our bonds with teams aren't rational. Indeed, the tribal nature of sport absolutely requires that we are bound by emotional connections that don't fully stand to reason. If this weren't the case then franchise sport wouldn't exist - or at least, not in any way recognisable to us all.

So while taking your business elsewhere is a perfectly logical response, I don't think it applies in sport.

I do think though that member voting rights could be compared to being a shareholder of a public company. You get a vote once per year that usually does pretty much nothing but the mechanism is in place to potentially arrest those major missteps: eg 7 years of Mary or the WIN buyout.

But this is a long way from constantly reviewing every minute decision - boards don't do that let alone shareholders/members.

Fair enough.

I agree that the idea members having a vote is usually more a tokenistic measure more than anything. The fact is that when organisations give members/shareholders voting rights it is usually the case that it is too hard for them to change things anyway. I've experienced this in organisations outside of sport so I guess it has shaped my views on all of this.