Who here can actually vote for the football club elections

[bartman]

Bit if an assumption there is it not? Not all the data is available yet so I would think that we could reserve judgment.

Yes, but given the recent revelations about some members never having paid a cent but remaining financial eligible to stand/vote, I think it's an assumption I'm happy to make until proven otherwise... Very sloppy record-keeping/communication for any form of club/organisation imo.

Well lost is a strong word, meaning the club was completely without the contact details of the members, I would say the better word would be an error in reporting.

The slight distinction is noted, but to me the terms are each pretty similar in their convetyance of this sloppiness.

This is quite disappointing though, No one has seemed to think that their might be a reason except for ineptitude at the club.

Ultimately, no matter whether it is software/programming being explicitly trusted when not up to the intended purposes, imo it does all come back to ineptitude on the club's part somewhere?

As for guns ablaze, it's just an internet forum and it's just an opinion. I have given credit here at times when the club has done good things too, which shouldn't then preclude the opposite opinion from being expressed.

But imo in many areas of its operations it really is time for the organisation(s) to cop a kick up the clacker and get with the times and be a little more professional about these things.

 

[MarkInTheStands]

Yes, but given the recent revelations about some members never having paid a cent but remaining financial eligible to stand/vote, I think it's an assumption I'm happy to make until proven otherwise... Very sloppy record-keeping/communication for any form of club/organisation imo.

Again I think you are taking the Telegraph as Bible when I can honestly inform you it is incorrect, as I have stated. Further more it is possible that other people can pay for your Membership, as a gift or to simplify thing, that happens to a few people on this Board as far as I am aware. So again I think you are drawing a very long bow at the moment.

The slight distinction is noted, but to me the terms are each pretty similar in their convetyance of this sloppiness.

Ultimately, no matter whether it is software/programming being explicitly trusted when not up to the intended purposes, imo it does all come back to ineptitude on the club's part somewhere?

I wholely disagree, there was a problem, it was unque, it was noted, and the club worked hard to fix it. The system as far as I am aware is used in several football club around Australia it is not like we have a unique system of computerised club membership administration. So they trusted a peice of software, In my opinion it doess not come back to sloppiness of ineptitude.

But imo in many areas of its operations it really is time for the organisation(s) to cop a kick up the clacker and get with the times and be a little more professional about these things.

But that one already has and it has been fixed, again we both don't know the specifics of Maroubra Eels case, but to claim ineptitude or even sloppiness straight off the bat is jumping to a conclusion.

 

[bartman]

Again I think you are taking the Telegraph as Bible when I can honestly inform you it is incorrect, as I have stated. Further more it is possible that other people can pay for your Membership, as a gift or to simplify thing, that happens to a few people on this Board as far as I am aware. So again I think you are drawing a very long bow at the moment.

I'm not doubting Ray Hadley has attended AGMs, as you have witnessed and have said MITS. But are you also saying that he has paid money to be/stay a financial member of the footy club when he is quoted in the DT as saying he has not?

if it is a gift or paid in kind situation, and the recipient of the gift is unaware of that being the case, I personally would find that seems a bit... dare I say improper? This might even the the type of thing I'm tempted to ask a question from the floor about in general business to clarify the club's stance going forward.

Perpetual and life memberships are clear enough, but there is no distinction in the list between people that have to pay for their memberships and people to whom the privilege might have been gifted.

I wholely disagree, there was a problem, it was unque, it was noted, and the club worked hard to fix it. The system as far as I am aware is used in several football club around Australia it is not like we have a unique system of computerised club membership administration. So they trusted a peice of software, In my opinion it doess not come back to sloppiness of ineptitude.

Fair enough. Happy to agree to disagree on this. If these operations of the club were run in a voluntary capacity, then I would be more likely not to expect the level of professionalism in communications and record keeping that I think we are entitled to in respect of a club's paid workers supervised by a paid management structure.

But that one already has and it has been fixed, again we both don't know the specifics of Maroubra Eels case, but to claim ineptitude or even sloppiness straight off the bat is jumping to a conclusion.

It is, and people jump to conclusions and pass opinions on matters all the time. For example opinions about pokie taxes, the nature of the NRL's deal with Ch 9, Ricky Stuart's suitability as national coach.

As I've admitted, the above is a conclusion/assumption I am happy to leap to based on the evidence at hand. I'm happy to change my opinion and take back my assumption if it proves otherwise. However Maroubra's situation, on first glance to me, seems to be more likely to fall down to the sloppiness of a glitch (software or human record keeping), than the other potential explanations.

The main thing is that he can get it clarified by the club - and then that the club does something about the cause(s) or in their communication so that similar circumstances don't continue to impact on other people.

 

[MarkInTheStands]

I'm not doubting Ray Hadley has attended AGMs, as you have witnessed and have said MITS. But are you also saying that he has paid money to be/stay a financial member of the footy club when he is quoted in the DT as saying he has not?

if it is a gift or paid in kind situation, and the recipient of the gift is unaware of that being the case, I personally would find that seems a bit... dare I say improper? This might even the the type of thing I'm tempted to ask a question from the floor about in general business to clarify the club's stance going forward.

Perpetual and life memberships are clear enough, but there is no distinction in the list between people that have to pay for their memberships and people to whom the privilege might have been gifted.

if it is a Gift, I don't think it comes from the club, actually I am quite sure the club doesn't pay his membership for him. Another member of the club may but I would wholey doubt it was be a gift or paid in kind situation from the club.

The main thing is that he can get it clarified by the club - and then that the club does something about the cause(s) or in their communication so that similar circumstances don't continue to impact on other people.

Well I am sure we await ME's response then.

 

[bartman]

if it is a Gift, I don't think it comes from the club, actually I am quite sure the club doesn't pay his membership for him. Another member of the club may but I would wholey doubt it was be a gift or paid in kind situation from the club.

Not wanting to put words in your mouth MITS, but if its not a gift, or paid in kind, then it sounds a bit reminiscent of branch stacking?

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with my club allowing people to approach membership in this manner. I'm still half-inclined to ask a question over the matter at the meeting, just to gauge the club's response/future stance, including any investigations it might want to launch following the public revelation of such processes at play.

 

[MarkInTheStands]

Not wanting to put words in your mouth MITS, but if its not a gift, or paid in kind, then it sounds a bit reminiscent of branch stacking?

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with my club allowing people to approach membership in this manner. I'm still half-inclined to ask a question over the matter at the meeting, just to gauge the club's response/future stance, including any investigations it might want to launch following the public revelation of such processes at play.

Whoa,

Firstly I said if it was a gift it didn't come from the club. Hellsy and JessEel got their memberships this way is that branch stacking? Also what would you do to regulate it, Make sure the money came from that person. How? Honestly that would make it tough for me to do what I have done for twizzle a few times and pay his membership. I used my money then he paid me back. But how can the club tell that. Lets say Bill is a member and he pays the $50 as a Christmas gift to his good mate Ray and his Wife Suzanne so they can be part of the club Bill is involved in, and does so with their consent. What are you going to do to stop that.

 

[bartman]

I think the issue from what I've read seems that Hadley doesn't know how he is still financial, so that seems like "Bill"'s Christmas gift is without Hadley's consent?

Point taken about you helping Twizz out, and I presume of a family gift of memberships to Hellsy and Jess. No names needed, but do you know whether a similar scenario is behind Hadley's membership MITS, or are we just thinking hypotheically?

I just think the Hadley story, backed with the Leabeater ruling (which I agree with, but there is clearly some sloppiness in recording/communicating membership terms involved there), matched with the data corruption or whatever of a few years ago is all starting to smell a bit too much for my liking.

To me the ALP (and other political parties for that matter) are essentially just clubs that hold elections (preselections) that people also pay membership into. If they can take steps to clean up their potential misuse of memberships on other people's behalves (branch stacking) without too much disruption or effort, then perhaps those in charge at our club can investigate how to become a bit more professional about this whole membership renewals, expirations and recording caper as well?

 

[fish eel]

Whoa,

Firstly I said if it was a gift it didn't come from the club. Hellsy and JessEel got their memberships this way is that branch stacking? Also what would you do to regulate it, Make sure the money came from that person. How? Honestly that would make it tough for me to do what I have done for twizzle a few times and pay his membership. I used my money then he paid me back. But how can the club tell that. Lets say Bill is a member and he pays the $50 as a Christmas gift to his good mate Ray and his Wife Suzanne so they can be part of the club Bill is involved in, and does so with their consent. What are you going to do to stop that.

I guess was Bart is questioning, based on the article, is the motive for gifting it to Ray.

If an individual on the board has 'gifted' a membership to a high profile media personality, then that is highly inappropriate.

It is very different to supporters having their membership paid for by a family member or friend.

 

[fish eel]

To me the ALP (and other political parties for that matter) are essentially just clubs that hold elections (preselections) that people also pay membership into. If they can take steps to clean up their potential misuse of memberships on other people's behalves (branch stacking) without too much disruption or effort, then perhaps those in charge at our club can investigate how to become a bit more professional about this whole membership renewals, expirations and recording caper as well?

A few years ago the ALP changed their rules so that you could only pay for multiple memberships via cheque or credit card if you were paying for family.

If you wanted pay for others, those had to be paid for in cash, at Sussex St, with the individual renewal forms presented. What a pain in the arse that rule change was - but it did go some way to people renewing year on year in one hit 200 'members'.

Of course, a rule change like this is only possible if you have the faciity to accept various methods of payment, cc, cheques etc for those unable to pay cash in person.

 

[parra-matters]

anyone got a link to article mentioning Hadley?

 

[bartman]

Can't find one yet... but here's a different one suggesting how sloppy and in need of clarity and communication our club's membership rules seem to be.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/nrl/story/0,27074,24687503-5016547,00.html

Legal row follows rebel nominations

By Josh Massoud | November 22, 2008 12:00am




THE full rebel ticket vying for control of Parramatta Football Club was unveiled last night, with 10 challengers nominating for the board election. A group comprising property developers, club sponsors and a former police sergeant has joined a bid from Parramatta greats Ray Price, Eric Grothe, Terry Leabeater and Brett Kenny to oust veteran Parramatta CEO Denis Fitzgerald.
But there was fresh drama - and legal threats - over the right of three rebel candidates to contest the December 14 vote.
The names of Sid Kelly, John Chidiac, Bob Gare, Robert Sassen, Ken Lawless and Robert Libertini were all submitted before yesterday's deadline. Leabeater, Kelly and Libertini, however, are not listed among the 669 voting members who are eligible to run for a position on the board and were duly rejected.
It is unclear why the trio are not listed, given they have voted in previous elections.
Kelly and Libertini - both long-time Eels sponsors - are considering their legal options in the wake of being told their sponsorship money covers the $25 membership subscription.

 

[bartman]

I might be getting confused about Hadley? But I thought I read something about he and his wife Sue saying they had never paid for membership but were somehow financial.

This is an article which says that journo Phil Rothfield seems to have been in the same boat:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sport/nrl/story/0,26799,24681852-5016307,00.html

A quick search of the 2004 members even revealed a certain Phillip Rothfield, lately of this vicinity.
Having never paid for a membership, he is still wondering what his name was ever doing there.

:?

 

[fish eel]

I would think a sponsor would have a sponsorship agreement which should state what the money includes?

 

[murraymob]

does any one know who has the numbers current board or rebel ticket

 

[bartman]

No one will know the number until the votes are counted I'd say. All depends how many of the 669 voters turn up or give proxies (if that's allowed), and whether they are voting exclusively for one ticket over another, or their own mixture of nominated candidates.

 

[bartman]

I would think a sponsor would have a sponsorship agreement which should state what the money includes?

You'd think so. But there seems to be a lot of verbal advice being referenced, that people have been relying on for various matters up until now.

I'd like to see things get a whole lot more professional, accountable and clearer in the future regardless of who is elected.

 

[fish eel]

You'd think so. But there seems to be a lot of verbal advice being referenced, that people have been relying on for various matters up until now.

I'd like to see things get a whole lot more professional, accountable and clearer in the future regardless of who is elected.

To be fair though, that should also be said of the sponsor in this instance.

 

[bartman]

Well yes. But if the culture is as it seems to be coming across in these articles, lots of verbal she'll be right mates and things unwritten but acted on, then yes sponsors and club alike should be getting with the times a bit more.

The club should really take a lead though imo, and have standardised and consistent ways of dealing with things such as what sponsorships entail/include, or the various ways in which membership can be obtained (I think this is the only website that carries such details, and credit MITS and Hellsy for that). I don't think that's too much to ask of a club the way the sports market has evolved.

 

[bazza]

I am eligible to vote (I think)
I am overseas so unfortunately I won't be getting a vote in

 

[MarkInTheStands]

I think the issue from what I've read seems that Hadley doesn't know how he is still financial, so that seems like "Bill"'s Christmas gift is without Hadley's consent?

But that is the point I have been trying to drive home Bart. Ray knows he is finacial as he has attended the meetings before.

I just think the Hadley story, backed with the Leabeater ruling (which I agree with, but there is clearly some sloppiness in recording/communicating membership terms involved there), matched with the data corruption or whatever of a few years ago is all starting to smell a bit too much for my liking.

See again with the Leabeater story I wonder how Mr Leabeater thinks he is a member, apart from thinking he was awarded something that was supposedly quite expensive from the club. I would not be surprised if Mr Leabeater was a Perpetual member of the Leagues club, like I am and have been since 1995. It would not surprise me in the slightest. Unless he can produce a Perpetual members badge, I don't beleive his claim.