2015 Board Candidates Announced

[Deaneus!]

The point being is a lot of people are skeptical of Jameson, so is it not fair to question these other people's motivations? It's not hard to put it together. At least Jameson can fall back on the 'giving back to the club' line.

I'm not skeptical of Jameson's motivations, though there's plenty of scope for that (and at least as much with other candidates)

My concern is Mr Jameson is an ex-player of the club - do you think his experience with the club is typical of say the 150-odd posters on this board, who are members that sit in the outer, sit through the OTR dance (not anymore) and generally are treated as uninformed agitators? How exactly would he represent me?

 

[Deaneus!]

It's absolutely disgusting that the candidates bio's are being withheld until the voting forms go out. Most members will just see 2 names on the ballot paper that they know well and that'll be that. Some may use that as an argument against member voting rights and that's probably fair enough. But that doesn't mean that the board should use it to its own advantage. There's no reason that when those names were listed on the afc website that they couldn't have been links through to the bio. Or each candidate's bio be a story itself, if the afl structured website is too limiting.

Pretty piss-weak process all round to be honest. Does anyone know if Jammo ended up doing an interview of AA.

I would say 19thDan has been the smartest in this regard with appealing to the supporter base (us) and setting up his own website.

Next year's election will be more interesting - if the two are staggered, wouldn't that mean only one position is up for election? then we'll start seeing lobbying, fancy websites, ads in the paper? God help anyone who nominates against a popular ex-player.

 

[Dandy_GO]

Help me out, which bit is the sham?

Exactly why do you think we've been pushing for member elected positions? Why is this attractive? What do we want from it?

We have spare positions on the board, as per our constitution, with which to appoint Roo, who is already acting as a board member anyway. As others have noted, why is Jameson trying to get on the board now all of a sudden? We finally have member elected positions, and yet we immediately place former players in the running? Why not just have Roo join the board without taking up one of the two member elected positions? It's a foregone conclusion he'll be appointed. We all know Roo will win, and it's very likely Jamo will too. I am not suggesting they're not qualified for a board position, or have nothing to contribute - I have no problem with either being on the board. But neither represent me and my experiences and needs as a supporter. Further to this, we could have someone infinitely more qualified than either running, yet they wouldn't in a million years stand a chance against Roo.

This is our first opportunity to vote for board members, and our first chance to be truly represented in club discussions at the highest level. We have had so many complaints over the years over the way the administration has talked down to fans, ignored public sentiment, lacked transparency to the detriment of the club, pushed agendas of exclusivity despite a public mantra of inclusivity. How completely out of touch with the common fan has the club seemed at times? So many of our mistakes over the last few years seemed to stem from this.

Until now, our only options have been to 'agitate' (for which we have been continuously mocked by the club), or to give up our memberships. That is exactly why member elected representation was so exciting. Why it made us hopeful for change.

We finally have member elected positions, and yet they stack the field with former players who could have made it onto the board through the regular processes years ago if they wanted them. As such, the voice of the regular supporter will likely continue to be unheard at this level.

It's such a disingenuous process.

Just another way to ensure the boys club mentality prevails.

Ultimately, fault will lie with the members, too, who vote based on name recognition alone. One of the realities of democratic processes is voter irrationality. There are many ways to exploit and manipulate this. One such way is placing OUR BEST EVER PLAYER amongst the field of candidates, when he's already on the ******* board, and could be there permanently through other processes.

Sham.

 

[headache1]

Exactly why do you think we've been pushing for member elected positions? Why is this attractive? What do we want from it?

We have spare positions on the board, as per our constitution, with which to appoint Roo, who is already acting as a board member anyway. As others have noted, why is Jameson trying to get on the board now all of a sudden? We finally have member elected positions, and yet we immediately place former players in the running? Why not just have Roo join the board without taking up one of the two member elected positions? It's a foregone conclusion he'll be appointed. We all know Roo will win, and it's very likely Jamo will too. I am not suggesting they're not qualified for a board position, or have nothing to contribute - I have no problem with either being on the board. But neither represent me and my experiences and needs as a supporter. Further to this, we could have someone infinitely more qualified than either running, yet they wouldn't in a million years stand a chance against Roo.

This is our first opportunity to vote for board members, and our first chance to be truly represented in club discussions at the highest level. We have had so many complaints over the years over the way the administration has talked down to fans, ignored public sentiment, lacked transparency to the detriment of the club, pushed agendas of exclusivity despite a public mantra of inclusivity. How completely out of touch with the common fan has the club seemed at times? So many of our mistakes over the last few years seemed to stem from this.

Until now, our only options have been to 'agitate' (for which we have been continuously mocked by the club), or to give up our memberships. That is exactly why member elected representation was so exciting. Why it made us hopeful for change.

We finally have member elected positions, and yet they stack the field with former players who could have made it onto the board through the regular processes years ago if they wanted them. As such, the voice of the regular supporter will likely continue to be unheard at this level.

It's such a disingenuous process.

Just another way to ensure the boys club mentality prevails.

Ultimately, fault will lie with the members, too, who vote based on name recognition alone. One of the realities of democratic processes is voter irrationality. There are many ways to exploit and manipulate this. One such way is placing OUR BEST EVER PLAYER amongst the field of candidates, when he's already on the ******* board, and could be there permanently through other processes.

Shambolic.

 

[Deaneus!]

Exactly why do you think we've been pushing for member elected positions? Why is this attractive? What do we want from it?

We have spare positions on the board, as per our constitution, with which to appoint Roo, who is already acting as a board member anyway. As others have noted, why is Jameson trying to get on the board now all of a sudden? We finally have member elected positions, and yet we immediately place former players in the running? Why not just have Roo join the board without taking up one of the two member elected positions? It's a foregone conclusion he'll be appointed. We all know Roo will win, and it's very likely Jamo will too. I am not suggesting they're not qualified for a board position, or have nothing to contribute - I have no problem with either being on the board. But neither represent me and my experiences and needs as a supporter. Further to this, we could have someone infinitely more qualified than either running, yet they wouldn't in a million years stand a chance against Roo.

This is our first opportunity to vote for board members, and our first chance to be truly represented in club discussions at the highest level. We have had so many complaints over the years over the way the administration has talked down to fans, ignored public sentiment, lacked transparency to the detriment of the club, pushed agendas of exclusivity despite a public mantra of inclusivity. How completely out of touch with the common fan has the club seemed at times? So many of our mistakes over the last few years seemed to stem from this.

Until now, our only options have been to 'agitate' (for which we have been continuously mocked by the club), or to give up our memberships. That is exactly why member elected representation was so exciting. Why it made us hopeful for change.

We finally have member elected positions, and yet they stack the field with former players who could have made it onto the board through the regular processes years ago if they wanted them. As such, the voice of the regular supporter will likely continue to be unheard at this level.

It's such a disingenuous process.

Just another way to ensure the boys club mentality prevails.

Ultimately, fault will lie with the members, too, who vote based on name recognition alone. One of the realities of democratic processes is voter irrationality. There are many ways to exploit and manipulate this. One such way is placing OUR BEST EVER PLAYER amongst the field of candidates, when he's already on the ******* board, and could be there permanently through other processes.

Sham.

 

[Niximus]

If, 12 months ago Roo was suggested for an elected position we would have thought it a fantastic idea.

In fact - when he was appointed, there were many people commenting how it was bull and how that was a sign of the boys club. Now electing him is a sign of the boys club...

And people wonder why we our criticism is so often written off...

 

[Deaneus!]

If, 12 months ago Roo was suggested for an elected position we would have thought it a fantastic idea.

Suggested for the board? Sure.
Suggested to be a member's representative on the board? I'm not so sure.

Twelve months ago, we had Trigg. I think it's an entirely different set of circumstances now.

 

[Niximus]

As I posted before
Member's vote and the Roo

People were complaining that an ex-player was just handed a spot on the board..OMG boys club!!

Now he's going to get voted in and WE'RE STILL ******* WHINGING!!

 

[Dandy_GO]

If, 12 months ago Roo was suggested for an elected position we would have thought it a fantastic idea.

In fact - when he was appointed, there were many people commenting how it was bull and how that was a sign of the boys club. Now electing him is a sign of the boys club...

And people wonder why we our criticism is so often written off...

Degrees of improvement.

If you lived under Mao's dictatorship during the cultural revolution, Deng Xiaoping's economic and social reforms starting in 1978 must have seemed like absolute heaven. It wasn't democracy, however. And so we had the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, which led to China's continued suppression of democratic movements.

I'm very happy with Roo being on the board, and, so far, with the changes he (and others) have brought to an administration that seemed so stale. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't like our new representative positions to actually be representative of me and my experiences/goals as a supporter - especially when Roo is, and could continue to be, on the board through other processes.

 

[Dandy_GO]

As I posted before
Member's vote and the Roo

People were complaining that an ex-player was just handed a spot on the board..OMG boys club!!

Now he's going to get voted in and WE'RE STILL ******* WHINGING!!

You're missing the point there. The complaints aren't about Roo specifically. They stem from our inability to influence the board. We didn't have a say. Now we have an avenue towards that, and yet the field of candidates has been stacked with two ex-players - one who is already on the bloody board. Our ability to have a say is still hindered.

 

[Niximus]

Once again, if we weren't so happy with Roo on the board we'd be pissed if they said "Actually, instead of putting him up for election like we said we would, we're just going to give him an appointed position" you'd be raging about that.
Let's say they do change their mind and appoint Roo, we'll we still have Jamo, so we need to stay pissed at that. How dare a candidate people want to vote for runs for an elected position. Ok, so we appoint Jamo too?

 

[headache1]

It's a pretty legitimate complaint. I absolutely want Roo on the board, but I think he probably has the credentials and profile to be appointed in the normal way, rather than being elected to represent the voice of the rank and file member.

 

[Bacon8]

Once again, if we weren't so happy with Roo on the board we'd be pissed if they said "Actually, instead of putting him up for election like we said we would, we're just going to give him an appointed position" you'd be raging about that.
Let's say they do change their mind and appoint Roo, we'll we still have Jamo, so we need to stay pissed at that. How dare a candidate people want to vote for runs for an elected position. Ok, so we appoint Jamo too?

I guess I misunderstood the club when they stated Roo's appointment was a long held succession plan.

Given the members' only received voting rights this year, it's interesting this succession plan knew that would happen. What would the board have done if member-elected directors weren't allowed??

 

[1970crow]

If, 12 months ago Roo was suggested for an elected position we would have thought it a fantastic idea.

In fact - when he was appointed, there were many people commenting how it was bull and how that was a sign of the boys club. Now electing him is a sign of the boys club...

And people wonder why we our criticism is so often written off...

Didn't take you long to be indoctrinated. A couple of hours in the boardroom and you're in.

 

[Niximus]

It's a pretty legitimate complaint. I absolutely want Roo on the board, but I think he probably has the credentials and profile to be appointed in the normal way, rather than being elected to represent the voice of the rank and file member.

If we are doing it right, I would hope that would be true for every member of the board, elected and appointed.

Member elected positions and having a regular member on the board are not the same thing. Every position on the Hawthorn board is up for election by the members and yet it is filled with people who were either initially appointed on a temporary basis (like Roo), or who were put up as a board backed candidate and then elected when nobody cared to stand against them. They aren't filling their board with Joe Member just because they can vote.

If anyone is standing as a candidate to be elected to the board, who wouldn't be suitable to be appointed to the board, I hope we don't vote for them.

 

[Niximus]

I guess I misunderstood the club when they stated Roo's appointment was a long held succession plan.

Given the members' only received voting rights this year, it's interesting this succession plan knew that would happen. What would the board have done if member-elected directors weren't allowed??

They mentioned the succession plan in the same announcement where they announced that he would stand for election after the initial term...

 

[AFC3000]

I haven't followed this closely but I kind of think that no matter who is up for election they should have the credentials to be directly appointed otherwise what do they bring.

I guess it comes down to some people want two voice of the ordinary people types and others who look at what they think the club needs and will vote on the candidates based on that?

I understand and agree that at this point in time someone to represent the members wouldn't be a bad thing but I also think that as a member what Mark Riccutio brings is going to do more for me because the number one thing I want is the best football program and wins. I've also thought the stuff Jameson has been doing with the past players group is very important in building a club so I don't any issue with his nomination either.

Do we ask that every strong candidate is banned from the members nomination because they are too good and the club should directly appoint them, or just the potentially popular ones? What if a popular past player like McLeod some day decides the board is for him and sends a nomination in like the other candidates without the club knowing, the club should directly appoint them because they are popular?

 

[Bacon8]

They mentioned the succession plan in the same announcement where they announced that he would stand for election after the initial term...

If he's standing for election, it's not a succession plan. Because he could lose the vote.

It's about how they word it. That part was one line. There are 3 other sections that can lead one to read that Roo would be appointed.

1)
Adelaide currently has seven board members, while the Chief Executive sits as a Board appointed Director. Under the Crows’ new Constitution, which allows for between seven and nine Directors, there is scope to now add another Director.

There is room to ADD another Director. Not elect.

2)
Ricciuto’s return is part of a long held succession plan, which will also see two highly valued and long-serving Board members, Peter Hurley and John Sutton, retire at the end of the year.

I take from this that these 2 guys will retire, and Ricciuto will success one of them. And then it's said in 2011, Hurley suggested Roo.

3)
“I first raised succession with the Chairman when I was last re-appointed to a three year term, and flagged that Mark Ricciuto would make an ideal Board member to take my place,”

But he isn't succeeding him. Someone else will take Hurley's place, as an appointed Director. Roo will be an Elected Director.

 

[Niximus]

If he's standing for election, it's not a succession plan. Because he could lose the vote.

It's about how they word it. That part was one line. There are 3 other sections that can lead one to read that Roo would be appointed.

1)
Adelaide currently has seven board members, while the Chief Executive sits as a Board appointed Director. Under the Crows’ new Constitution, which allows for between seven and nine Directors, there is scope to now add another Director.

There is room to ADD another Director. Not elect.

2)
Ricciuto’s return is part of a long held succession plan, which will also see two highly valued and long-serving Board members, Peter Hurley and John Sutton, retire at the end of the year.

I take from this that these 2 guys will retire, and Ricciuto will success one of them. And then it's said in 2011, Hurley suggested Roo.

3)
“I first raised succession with the Chairman when I was last re-appointed to a three year term, and flagged that Mark Ricciuto would make an ideal Board member to take my place,”

But he isn't succeeding him. Someone else will take Hurley's place, as an appointed Director. Roo will be an Elected Director.

That same article also says "Ricciuto steps into this role immediately until the end of the year. Ricciuto will then stand for election, with the Club’s members now having the capacity to fill up to two positions on the board."

If you interpret the bits you've quoted to imply that they intended to have Roo succeed Hurley, Sutton or Chapman as an appointed Director, it contradicts the announcement that he would stand for election.

 

[Bacon8]

Having a 3 year old succession plan contradicts the need to stand for election

 

[Niximus]

Personally, I think that having Roo as an elected Director means that the most influential member of the board is directly accountable to the members.

No offence to the other candidates, but I am far more confident of Roo's ability to actually effect change on behalf of the members.

 

[Mattrox]

You're missing the point there. The complaints aren't about Roo specifically. They stem from our inability to influence the board. We didn't have a say. Now we have an avenue towards that, and yet the field of candidates has been stacked with two ex-players - one who is already on the bloody board. Our ability to have a say is still hindered.

So we should supress Jamo's right to run for election?

 

[AFC3000]

It might be the succession plan the club has hoped for, but its up to the members to decide if thats the direction we want to go in. As has been said if he had failed and lost the support of the members in the last 6 months we could not elect him and would be even angrier with the club if they went a head and directly appointed him.

 

[Peter Doherty]

from what I read you weren't questioning their motivations you were making uninformed judgments.

It's just how it see it.

Just a thought, some here think that the non former players are a good idea because they are not part of the 'old boys club' but fail to see how these guys and girls are simply wanting to be part of the boys club, that's what makes this process a sham

 

[Niximus]

Having a 3 year old succession plan contradicts the need to stand for election

2)
Ricciuto’s return is part of a long held succession plan, which will also see two highly valued and long-serving Board members, Peter Hurley and John Sutton, retire at the end of the year.

I take from this that these 2 guys will retire, and Ricciuto will success one of them. And then it's said in 2011, Hurley suggested Roo.

The key word in the above quote is 'also'.
All you can take from this without making assumptions is.
1) There was a plan for Roo to join the board.
2) The plan included Hurley and Sutton retiring and being replaced.

Those two things are not necessarily linked in the manner you have interpreted them to be.

If the plan was [Roo joins the board and then stands for election, while Hurley is replaced by X and Sutton replaced by Y] it makes sense and doesn't contradict the comment about Roo standing for election.