rpfc

Sick hat. Corduroy? Thats phat. No cap. … NO I AM YOUNG

Don’t remember the random nuffy letters from Pies fans or Tigers fans in their recent nadirs… … Yes, I am aware they can’t write. Point stands.

Why would Lyon want to do that show?

No, but a curated board empowered and installed by the AFL did give us a flag and a united club.

Again, excellent strawman you are creating for yourself and your obviously biased hawk friend. Autocracies huh? I am talking about the unnecessary descent into a purer ‘democracy’ for football boards leads to an anarchy that is not going to lead to success, not going to lead to a united club, not going to lead to the best outcome for the us as fans, but I think it will lead to what this ‘hawk’ wants…

Oh you have that confirmed do you? Have you been hacked? WTF is going on?

What is this? I expect better from who I believe was Binman’s PA yeah? As bing points out - you don’t know but you just know?? The board should be given the opportunity to balance itself and try to meet the needs of boards in this unique AFL landscape. Now you want to get rid of them and get a new ticket in? Great, then enough quality people will agree with you, the AFL will push for it, and you can vote for that or better yet create the media and pubic pressure to dissolve the board entirely. This isn’t the US sports landscape - we can do that. But until then, they are doing what we have entrusted them to do, your ‘inklings’ notwithstanding.

I can’t answer that counter factual only that it contributed to us not getting to prelims.

I agree, but both ideas can be right. We should have made prelims in 22 and 23 (that’s my measure - anything happens from there) and we didn’t, but we definitely should have cashed all chips to get a forward after 21. I love Ben Brown but he was never going to be what we needed. From a very high level - we couldn’t convert our dominance and it in part led to our failure in those years.

Oh is he? I was completely unaware…

You’re excellent at creating a straw man to argue with.

[Entering into ChatGPT] Dees fan having a stroke during a post on Demonland…

These long contracts are either a master stroke or a bane of flexibility and opportunity. I was a fan but now I am not so sure I would go past 5 years for stars of the game… Other than that, I wish we were better at finding players from other clubs. This ‘pro-scouting’ was a strength when we got Lever and May and Melksham and Hibberd. But now we are not getting those players, and one could argue it played a part in a unsuccessful last 3 years.

I am comfortable with my opinion of ‘low information group’ that some are trying to entrust with electing a balanced and capable corporate board, and I have a lower opinion of those that would utilise for their own ends the incidence of dubious court cases against certain individuals. I would not crow about the AFL’s opinion of the club leadership, any intervention from here will dramatically decrease the likelihood of your mate Lawrence getting on the board. You may continue your crusade.

Quite. But also, when was the hand back, exactly? Calling this ‘revisionist history’ is a compliment, we are so ignorant of circumstance. Again, when was the ‘hand back’ and you ‘take to mean’ the steady string of AFL-approved board approached people as ‘the old boys club’? What do you think Democracy of the membership will get you?! We seek ‘approval’ from the AFL for those that we wish to keep and bring onto the board because it is the best way we can ensure that HQ are vested and happy with the skills we have to provide governance of the club - to continue to bleed the constitution to ensure more ‘freedom’ for individuals to encumber that is foolhardy. Democracy is for societal bodies and governmental representation, and something to be sought for and vociferously demanded - but not at footy clubs - let’s have some perspective.

We were a ‘franchise operated by the AFL’ at the end of 2013… Most on here look back fondly on the time of Peter Jackson and the ‘AFL approved’ board. We have the necessary mechanisms to remove an admin that is wholly incompetent or corrupt but save for that - the board should replenish itself and get on with it in conjunction with what the head office wants to see. Thats my view, it’s also current reality.

You follow a club or a constituency? The vast majority of members would not know what proper corporate governance and balance should entail. All the above would lead to is populist reactionary bullplop.

I especially don’t like it when they reference the legal troubles wrought by a certain former leader on the club board. Doesn’t he want to join that board? That club? Why side with those that wish to demean them, that you don’t know much about? In my view, it provide a clarity to the objectives here, and ‘Democracy’ is a cudgel, a red herring to motive. I have worn this argument out the last few years but footy boards these days cannot afford to be run ‘purely through the members best judgement’ - we don’t know. The elections should be a failsafe in case of gross incompetence or fraudulent behaviour. Otherwise, the board renews itself with the balanced capable people that it needs to govern and achieve its objectives.

My only addendum is around the review of footy ops being squarely focussed on Pert but with Richardson in the gun. Thats the disappointing thing for me with being so equivocal with what you are reviewing - it makes it very easy to know who the blame will fall with.

There is no inherent problem with Pert being on the review of footy ops; he isn’t in footy ops. The disappointment is that there seems to be a review of the board, a review of footy ops but not of the non-footy ops and exec of the club. But the CEO will have to enact the changes at the behest of the board so he or she leading the review is probably essential IF they are seen to be around for enough time to enact the reforms of the footy ops area. Maybe we can’t afford a new CEO right now so it is pointless to remove or review the role or diminish his involvement in the review. We have to live in reality here. But we will see what public pressure will steer us toward…

Err, ok, then. As Kamala would say - “we’re not going back.”

Why is everything so personal? Everyone is trying to do a good job with their roles and responsibilities and a review would look at more than just the specific opinions of staff of other employees of the club… Structure, roles and responsibilities, support, training, environmental factors, et al. These are the more valuable aspects of a review, not the opportunity to give people a chance to [censored] on others. While I would prefer a broader review, it is not a reason to require a broader review.

I am just going off the press release/email from the club.

Gale lead the review of footy ops at the Tigers that preceded their golden era. I don’t see an issue with that, the disappointment is that the board is to be reviewed, and footy ops is to be reviewed, but not the exec ops and non-footy ops. It shouldn’t be about people losing jobs but identifying what we could be doing better. I do see these two areas as the highest priorities however.