Board Challenge

[rodgerfox]

If I was employed by the club and posting like I do on this forum then you should be even more worried about our club than we are all right now.

What exactly are you worried about?

[saynta]

More self important flogs that just want to use our club as a vehicle to promote their own agendas.

Pretty uniformed and stereotyping comment mate.
As I said earlier people in the know reckon this guy loves the Saints and is super smart tough and connected and respected in footy world.
Don’t shoot the messenger as this forum tends to do and be so negative, only passing on what I heard.
Not sure he even wants to or has expressed a desire to be involved.
If you don’t want him who do you want?
Every person will have knockers on this forum.

What are the specifics around why the board are "yes" men and how that has negatively impacted the club. Can you give examples of any decissions the board have made that have failed to improve the club or even set the club back?

No generalisations please. Specifics, even facts around decissions.

Not my job or inclination to air all the dirty laundry on this forum.
My information is incredibly accurate and reliably informed that change is circling and desperately required.
Choose to believe or not it makes no difference to me.
Clearly you are satisfied with on and off field at the moment?

Are you still employed at the club Jaxons?

Still? Never was imho.

[Linton Lodger]

More self important flogs that just want to use our club as a vehicle to promote their own agendas.

Pretty uniformed and stereotyping comment mate.
As I said earlier people in the know reckon this guy loves the Saints and is super smart tough and connected and respected in footy world.
Don’t shoot the messenger as this forum tends to do and be so negative, only passing on what I heard.
Not sure he even wants to or has expressed a desire to be involved.
If you don’t want him who do you want?
Every person will have knockers on this forum.

What are the specifics around why the board are "yes" men and how that has negatively impacted the club. Can you give examples of any decissions the board have made that have failed to improve the club or even set the club back?

No generalisations please. Specifics, even facts around decissions.

Not my job or inclination to air all the dirty laundry on this forum.
My information is incredibly accurate and reliably informed that change is circling and desperately required.
Choose to believe or not it makes no difference to me.
Clearly you are satisfied with on and off field at the moment?

I'm not questioning your info, however is there a reason you cannot share what you know? In another post you have said words to the effect of "if you knew what I knew". Can you provide specifics of what you know regarding our issues?

[saynta]

More self important flogs that just want to use our club as a vehicle to promote their own agendas.

Pretty uniformed and stereotyping comment mate.
As I said earlier people in the know reckon this guy loves the Saints and is super smart tough and connected and respected in footy world.
Don’t shoot the messenger as this forum tends to do and be so negative, only passing on what I heard.
Not sure he even wants to or has expressed a desire to be involved.
If you don’t want him who do you want?
Every person will have knockers on this forum.

What are the specifics around why the board are "yes" men and how that has negatively impacted the club. Can you give examples of any decissions the board have made that have failed to improve the club or even set the club back?

No generalisations please. Specifics, even facts around decissions.

Not my job or inclination to air all the dirty laundry on this forum.
My information is incredibly accurate and reliably informed that change is circling and desperately required.
Choose to believe or not it makes no difference to me.
Clearly you are satisfied with on and off field at the moment?

I'm not questioning your info, however is there a reason you cannot share what you know? In another post you have said words to the effect of "if you knew what I knew". Can you provide specifics of what you know regarding our issues?

You know that old saying LL. "Piss and wind."?

[Rocket]

Jaxons - your insights are appreciated by the majority. Keep them coming..... it at least gives us hope that change is in the wind.

Dont get sucked into the minority who want to shoot you down.

[rodgerfox]

Jaxons - your insights are appreciated by the majority. Keep them coming..... it at least gives us hope that change is in the wind.

Dont get sucked into the minority who want to shoot you down.

I used to love Jaxons' insights, ditto Tony74 and the other ITKs that have frequented here over the years.

However Jaxons isn't really offering any insight as to what the off-field issues are.

[Con Gorozidis]

Jaxons - your insights are appreciated by the majority. Keep them coming..... it at least gives us hope that change is in the wind.

Dont get sucked into the minority who want to shoot you down.

I used to love Jaxons' insights, ditto Tony74 and the other ITKs that have frequented here over the years.

However Jaxons isn't really offering any insight as to what the off-field issues are.

Tv ratings for the AFL are falling dramatically this season.
If people think minnows like the Saints and Suns can just sail through with s*** tv audiences serving up absolute crap performances then people are naive.
Tv execs will be piling on the pressure behind the scenes.

I'd love to see the % of tv viewers who switched off at quarter time on Saturday night . This is the kind of data the AFL monitor closely.

[Con Gorozidis]

Jaxons - your insights are appreciated by the majority. Keep them coming..... it at least gives us hope that change is in the wind.

Dont get sucked into the minority who want to shoot you down.

Same here.
I'm 100% behind jaxons.
The incumbents got a good go at it and have shown themselves to be incompetent and weak.
The jury is in.

[st.byron]

Jaxons - your insights are appreciated by the majority. Keep them coming..... it at least gives us hope that change is in the wind.

Dont get sucked into the minority who want to shoot you down.

+1

[st.byron]

More self important flogs that just want to use our club as a vehicle to promote their own agendas.

Pretty uniformed and stereotyping comment mate.
As I said earlier people in the know reckon this guy loves the Saints and is super smart tough and connected and respected in footy world.
Don’t shoot the messenger as this forum tends to do and be so negative, only passing on what I heard.
Not sure he even wants to or has expressed a desire to be involved.
If you don’t want him who do you want?
Every person will have knockers on this forum.

What are the specifics around why the board are "yes" men and how that has negatively impacted the club. Can you give examples of any decissions the board have made that have failed to improve the club or even set the club back?

No generalisations please. Specifics, even facts around decissions.

Not my job or inclination to air all the dirty laundry on this forum.
My information is incredibly accurate and reliably informed that change is circling and desperately required.
Choose to believe or not it makes no difference to me.
Clearly you are satisfied with on and off field at the moment?

Any sense of a timeframe? Am assuming that smart high end players will be taking into account the need to have a team bedded in for the start of the next trade and draft period. This year is a write off, action required ASAP.

[rodgerfox]

Ok, again, I need someone to answer this for me....

I get the coach getting the arse. I get assistants getting the arse. I get recruiters getting the arse (although I don't necessarily agree with this one).

But why the board?

Record membership.
Back to Moorabbin - with Huge input from AFL and government.
Off-field stability.
Two 'marquee' timeslots.
No 'dwarf burning' incidents.
Fast tracked stadium deal.
3 month payout clause written into Richo's extension.


Let's be clear, I'm not necessarily supporting the current board, as I don't know enough about the off-field stuff.

But am I correct in the above?

What is it that I'm missing, that has a board spill so high on many people's agendas?

[rodgerfox]

Now again, I'm not supporting the board - bit can someone refute this:

http://m.saints.com.au/news/2017-11-29/ ... ial-result


That all seems ok doesn't it? And I'm not being facetious here.

[MC Gusto]

I support Jaxons and Tony74 100%

Not sure why folks have to shout them down?? Weird

[Con Gorozidis]

I support Jaxons and Tony74 100%

Not sure why folks have to shout them down?? Weird

Tony74 is part of the problem.

[Saintmatt]

More self important flogs that just want to use our club as a vehicle to promote their own agendas.

Pretty uniformed and stereotyping comment mate.
As I said earlier people in the know reckon this guy loves the Saints and is super smart tough and connected and respected in footy world.
Don’t shoot the messenger as this forum tends to do and be so negative, only passing on what I heard.
Not sure he even wants to or has expressed a desire to be involved.
If you don’t want him who do you want?
Every person will have knockers on this forum.

What are the specifics around why the board are "yes" men and how that has negatively impacted the club. Can you give examples of any decissions the board have made that have failed to improve the club or even set the club back?

No generalisations please. Specifics, even facts around decissions.

Hi Cairnsman - I will give you one specific decision that the board has made(/ ratified) that failed to improve and in fact, has set the club back.

Extending Alan Richardson's contract.

Richo had not got us into the finals nor were we in any danger of having him snaffled from under our noses by another club. Therefore, why the need for an extension? All it did was put a giant millstone around the CEO/Board's collective necks. Pretty sure they'd like their time again re: this decision. And if they wouldn't - that says everything about blind faith and ignorance.

I think Richo is a nice bloke with his heart in the right spot but - by any measure he's failed to execute on development of the playing group (i.e. his supposed area of coaching strength) nor around game style. As Roo said - there's no identifiable game style (or system). It's effort and intensity or bust. And we've seen a lot of bust.

[Con Gorozidis]

Now again, I'm not supporting the board - bit can someone refute this:

http://m.saints.com.au/news/2017-11-29/ ... ial-result


That all seems ok doesn't it? And I'm not being facetious here.

Quotes Board propaganda on saints website as source of information. Club focus on marketing is not a sustainable model imo.

Have a look at attendances and tv ratings for our games.

The club has become a bulls*** factory.

Why do you think no player wants to come to us?

We are a joke.

The back to Moorabbin move was a State Government initiative that anybody could have achieved. Very over rated.
Membership numbers are inflated by changing definitions and membership types.

[rodgerfox]

More self important flogs that just want to use our club as a vehicle to promote their own agendas.

Pretty uniformed and stereotyping comment mate.
As I said earlier people in the know reckon this guy loves the Saints and is super smart tough and connected and respected in footy world.
Don’t shoot the messenger as this forum tends to do and be so negative, only passing on what I heard.
Not sure he even wants to or has expressed a desire to be involved.
If you don’t want him who do you want?
Every person will have knockers on this forum.

What are the specifics around why the board are "yes" men and how that has negatively impacted the club. Can you give examples of any decissions the board have made that have failed to improve the club or even set the club back?

No generalisations please. Specifics, even facts around decissions.

Hi Cairnsman - I will give you one specific decision that the board has made(/ ratified) that failed to improve and in fact, has set the club back.

Extending Alan Richardson's contract.

Richo had not got us into the finals nor were we in any danger of having him snaffled from under our noses by another club. Therefore, why the need for an extension? All it did was put a giant millstone around the CEO/Board's collective necks. Pretty sure they'd like their time again re: this decision. And if they wouldn't - that says everything about blind faith and ignorance.

I think Richo is a nice bloke with his heart in the right spot but - by any measure he's failed to execute on development of the playing group (i.e. his supposed area of coaching strength) nor around game style. As Roo said - there's no identifiable game style (or system). It's effort and intensity or bust. And we've seen a lot of bust.

But if the reports are true that it has a 3 month payout clause - what's the problem exactly?

[rodgerfox]

Now again, I'm not supporting the board - bit can someone refute this:

http://m.saints.com.au/news/2017-11-29/ ... ial-result


That all seems ok doesn't it? And I'm not being facetious here.

Quotes Board propaganda on saints website as source of information. Club focus on marketing is not a sustainable model imo.

Have a look at attendances and tv ratings for our games.

The club has become a bulls*** factory.

Why do you think no player wants to come to us?

We are a joke.

The back to Moorabbin move was a State Government initiative that anybody could have achieved. Very over rated.
Membership numbers are inflated by changing definitions and membership types.

Come on Con, you've got to bring something more scandalous than low TV and crowd figures during a shitty season on-field.

Do you blame the board for that?

[Saintmatt]

More self important flogs that just want to use our club as a vehicle to promote their own agendas.

Pretty uniformed and stereotyping comment mate.
As I said earlier people in the know reckon this guy loves the Saints and is super smart tough and connected and respected in footy world.
Don’t shoot the messenger as this forum tends to do and be so negative, only passing on what I heard.
Not sure he even wants to or has expressed a desire to be involved.
If you don’t want him who do you want?
Every person will have knockers on this forum.

What are the specifics around why the board are "yes" men and how that has negatively impacted the club. Can you give examples of any decissions the board have made that have failed to improve the club or even set the club back?

No generalisations please. Specifics, even facts around decissions.

Hi Cairnsman - I will give you one specific decision that the board has made(/ ratified) that failed to improve and in fact, has set the club back.

Extending Alan Richardson's contract.

Richo had not got us into the finals nor were we in any danger of having him snaffled from under our noses by another club. Therefore, why the need for an extension? All it did was put a giant millstone around the CEO/Board's collective necks. Pretty sure they'd like their time again re: this decision. And if they wouldn't - that says everything about blind faith and ignorance.

I think Richo is a nice bloke with his heart in the right spot but - by any measure he's failed to execute on development of the playing group (i.e. his supposed area of coaching strength) nor around game style. As Roo said - there's no identifiable game style (or system). It's effort and intensity or bust. And we've seen a lot of bust.

But if the reports are true that it has a 3 month payout clause - what's the problem exactly?

Hi RF - IF the 3 month payout clause is an actuality then, it's not dire; but still not great. Regardless - you still have the stain of a CEO and Board extending a coach and then admitting soon thereafter that they got it seriously wrong and had to lop him. That is a very, very poor look by anyone's reckoning and also, impacts on how you do business going forward. For example - player managers love stability and by contrast - they hate flip-flopping ... by extension - not great for attracting recruits and FA's. Also - it will be yet another thing the AFL and it's media acolytes will be able to throw at us proving we're incompetent. For us - it's not just about the monetary cost of paying out 3 months. I'll draw your attention to Hawthorn's situation over appointing Tracey Goudry as CEO - and then punting her. Their Chairman resigned over that such was the poor look (and clearly, $ are not an issue for the Dawks).

The only way our board and CEO can save face here is if Richo does the honorable thing. Given there's not too many places you'd expect Richo will be able to earn $500K + pa - I'd suggest this outcome will be unlikely.

[rodgerfox]

Hi RF - IF the 3 month payout clause is an actuality then, it's not dire; but still not great. Regardless - you still have the stain of a CEO and Board extending a coach and then admitting soon thereafter that they got it seriously wrong and had to lop him. That is a very, very poor look by anyone's reckoning and also, impacts on how you do business going forward. For example - player managers love stability and by contrast - they hate flip-flopping ... by extension - not great for attracting recruits and FA's. Also - it will be yet another thing the AFL and it's media acolytes will be able to throw at us proving we're incompetent. For us - it's not just about the monetary cost of paying out 3 months. I'll draw your attention to Hawthorn's situation over appointing Tracey Goudry as CEO - and then punting her. Their Chairman resigned over that such was the poor look (and clearly, $ are not an issue for the Dawks).

The only way our board and CEO can save face here is if Richo does the honorable thing. Given there's not too many places you'd expect Richo will be able to earn $500K + pa - I'd suggest this outcome will be unlikely.

I'm not sure I agree.

I see your point, but at absolute worst, it reflects poorly on the CEO - not the Board.

My personal experience with boards, is that they don't get involved with management. They appoint the CEO, determine the strategy, and management carry it out.

It's very rare for a board to reject a CEO's recommendation regarding staff.


Secondly, if (and it is a big 'if') there is a 3 month payout clause, then I don't see anything at all wrong with extending a coaches contract as they enter their final year.

It's show gross poor judgement if it doesn't have the clause, but if it does it's a very common way for clubs to manage coaching contracts.

If it doesn't, the board may have a good case to act on the CEO, but the only way the board would be held responsible in the real world would be if they were negligent in terms of how they managed the approval of the CEO's recommendation.

But given the Corporation's Act that these people operate under and are bound by - I'd be surprised if they left themselves open to that.

[Saintmatt]

Hi RF - IF the 3 month payout clause is an actuality then, it's not dire; but still not great. Regardless - you still have the stain of a CEO and Board extending a coach and then admitting soon thereafter that they got it seriously wrong and had to lop him. That is a very, very poor look by anyone's reckoning and also, impacts on how you do business going forward. For example - player managers love stability and by contrast - they hate flip-flopping ... by extension - not great for attracting recruits and FA's. Also - it will be yet another thing the AFL and it's media acolytes will be able to throw at us proving we're incompetent. For us - it's not just about the monetary cost of paying out 3 months. I'll draw your attention to Hawthorn's situation over appointing Tracey Goudry as CEO - and then punting her. Their Chairman resigned over that such was the poor look (and clearly, $ are not an issue for the Dawks).

The only way our board and CEO can save face here is if Richo does the honorable thing. Given there's not too many places you'd expect Richo will be able to earn $500K + pa - I'd suggest this outcome will be unlikely.

I'm not sure I agree.

I see your point, but at absolute worst, it reflects poorly on the CEO - not the Board.

My personal experience with boards, is that they don't get involved with management. They appoint the CEO, determine the strategy, and management carry it out.

It's very rare for a board to reject a CEO's recommendation regarding staff.


Secondly, if (and it is a big 'if') there is a 3 month payout clause, then I don't see anything at all wrong with extending a coaches contract as they enter their final year.

It's show gross poor judgement if it doesn't have the clause, but if it does it's a very common way for clubs to manage coaching contracts.

If it doesn't, the board may have a good case to act on the CEO, but the only way the board would be held responsible in the real world would be if they were negligent in terms of how they managed the approval of the CEO's recommendation.

But given the Corporation's Act that these people operate under and are bound by - I'd be surprised if they left themselves open to that.

I agree with the interplay b/w the Board and Management re: staff and yes, Finnis would be the one who would largely cop the flak for that (there may also be a Bains element too - I don't think this numpty is blameless re: recruiting either). However, the Board has to ratify a coaching extension so, by association - they're also impacted. Re: the Corps Act - no problems there I'd assume - there's enough smart people on that board to ensure that the governance around the decision is at the appropriate level.

My main point is why on earth did they extend Richo for two years (if at all) ... after the year he already had to run?!?!?! He'd not got us into the finals nor won one. If they wanted to hedge their bets - they could've extended him until the end of 2019 if they felt the optics of stability were so absolutely necessary. I don't recall anyone - Saints fans or otherwise - feeling like he deserved the extension afterwards.

Either way - punting a coach is just a poor look that invites further negative discussion around our club - one that's not exactly enjoyed a stellar reputation for doing things the right way in the past.

I'd much prefer not talking about a potential board challenge - that's for sure.

[rodgerfox]

Either way - punting a coach is just a poor look that invites further negative discussion around our club - one that's not exactly enjoyed a stellar reputation for doing things the right way in the past.

I'd much prefer not talking about a potential board challenge - that's for sure.

Fair enough.

[Impatient Sainter]

Hi RF - IF the 3 month payout clause is an actuality then, it's not dire; but still not great. Regardless - you still have the stain of a CEO and Board extending a coach and then admitting soon thereafter that they got it seriously wrong and had to lop him. That is a very, very poor look by anyone's reckoning and also, impacts on how you do business going forward. For example - player managers love stability and by contrast - they hate flip-flopping ... by extension - not great for attracting recruits and FA's. Also - it will be yet another thing the AFL and it's media acolytes will be able to throw at us proving we're incompetent. For us - it's not just about the monetary cost of paying out 3 months. I'll draw your attention to Hawthorn's situation over appointing Tracey Goudry as CEO - and then punting her. Their Chairman resigned over that such was the poor look (and clearly, $ are not an issue for the Dawks).

The only way our board and CEO can save face here is if Richo does the honorable thing. Given there's not too many places you'd expect Richo will be able to earn $500K + pa - I'd suggest this outcome will be unlikely.

I'm not sure I agree.

I see your point, but at absolute worst, it reflects poorly on the CEO - not the Board.

My personal experience with boards, is that they don't get involved with management. They appoint the CEO, determine the strategy, and management carry it out.

It's very rare for a board to reject a CEO's recommendation regarding staff.


Secondly, if (and it is a big 'if') there is a 3 month payout clause, then I don't see anything at all wrong with extending a coaches contract as they enter their final year.

It's show gross poor judgement if it doesn't have the clause, but if it does it's a very common way for clubs to manage coaching contracts.

If it doesn't, the board may have a good case to act on the CEO, but the only way the board would be held responsible in the real world would be if they were negligent in terms of how they managed the approval of the CEO's recommendation.

But given the Corporation's Act that these people operate under and are bound by - I'd be surprised if they left themselves open to that.

I agree with the interplay b/w the Board and Management re: staff and yes, Finnis would be the one who would largely cop the flak for that (there may also be a Bains element too - I don't think this numpty is blameless re: recruiting either). However, the Board has to ratify a coaching extension so, by association - they're also impacted. Re: the Corps Act - no problems there I'd assume - there's enough smart people on that board to ensure that the governance around the decision is at the appropriate level.

My main point is why on earth did they extend Richo for two years (if at all) ... after the year he already had to run?!?!?! He'd not got us into the finals nor won one. If they wanted to hedge their bets - they could've extended him until the end of 2019 if they felt the optics of stability were so absolutely necessary. I don't recall anyone - Saints fans or otherwise - feeling like he deserved the extension afterwards.

Either way - punting a coach is just a poor look that invites further negative discussion around our club - one that's not exactly enjoyed a stellar reputation for doing things the right way in the past.

I'd much prefer not talking about a potential board challenge - that's for sure.

I believe Richo will be given until the end of the year, but then will be replaced and for me it is 2 years too late.

[Cairnsman]

More self important flogs that just want to use our club as a vehicle to promote their own agendas.

Pretty uniformed and stereotyping comment mate.
As I said earlier people in the know reckon this guy loves the Saints and is super smart tough and connected and respected in footy world.
Don’t shoot the messenger as this forum tends to do and be so negative, only passing on what I heard.
Not sure he even wants to or has expressed a desire to be involved.
If you don’t want him who do you want?
Every person will have knockers on this forum.

What are the specifics around why the board are "yes" men and how that has negatively impacted the club. Can you give examples of any decissions the board have made that have failed to improve the club or even set the club back?

No generalisations please. Specifics, even facts around decissions.

Not my job or inclination to air all the dirty laundry on this forum.
My information is incredibly accurate and reliably informed that change is circling and desperately required.
Choose to believe or not it makes no difference to me.
Clearly you are satisfied with on and off field at the moment?

Gotta love the internet. Well I hope your wishes for a bloodletting of the club are denied until such time as a proper argument can be presented for justification of a bloodletting.

I reckon any attempt at a coup would more than likely be met with the same ridicule and slap-down as that shown towards that delusional group of disgruntled gents who embarrassingly attempted to overthrow the Richmond board in 2016. They also thought they were rich and powerful and could get the club more wins with thier money and power. History proved they were very wrong.

[ROLS-LEE]

Jaxons - your insights are appreciated by the majority. Keep them coming..... it at least gives us hope that change is in the wind.

Dont get sucked into the minority who want to shoot you down.

Same here.
I'm 100% behind jaxons.
The incumbents got a good go at it and have shown themselves to be incompetent and weak.
The jury is in.

+ 1 here to.