Strategy I'm the guy who tried to run for the board, ask me anything

[Shagga is all Class]

Hi, I'm James. I'm the guy who ran for the board earlier this year and was blocked by the new nominations committee.

Long time lurker on this forum.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Even if you wouldn't have voted for me, the point is this - the members deserve a say in how the club is run.

The constitution of the North Melbourne Football Club guarantees members the right to vote, a right that has been taken away by the current administration.

We own this club. Ben Buckley does not.

If the current mob are too scared to face an election, can we trust them to stand up for the club when the heat is on?

Someone mentioned Caroline Carnegie in this thread who had a very narrow loss for NMFC board (~ 2011?) but is currently on the Melbourne Victory board.

What is your take on Julie Laycock who was appointed to the board 27/09/2011 without a member vote prior to the election? From what I recall, Fulvio and Head stood down and the board went from 8 to 7. Laycock was direct appointed prior to the election and it went down to the wire. If no one had nominated, a direct appointment would have been elected to the NMFC unopposed. Now the nomination can be blocked by a committee.

This kind of reminds me of Gerald Ford who direct appointed to VP and President without being elected to either and then pardoned Nixon.

 

[Winterlong]

Take the tinfoil hat off mate. I’m hardly the only one asking questions, both El Triggso and kangatime are raising similar points. Which winterfell has avoided answering.

If you’re going to challenge for a position on a football club board, it’s not unreasonable to know what you’re vision is, what you bring to the table and most importantly for many of us, what you’re position on selling games interstate is. Hardly looks like there’s nothing to hide, if we can’t get answers to those.

As for the implication that I shirk asking similar questions of other club officials. I think you’ll find I have attended numerous AGMs in the past where I have asked questions of the board. As I have done numerous times on here, when other club officials have bothered posting. From asking questions about Tassie to Funky Carl when he posted on here last year, to Euge and other officials. And I would do the same if any other board member was here right now, but unfortunately this isn’t the Ben Buckley ask me anything thread.

Staggered that we’ve gotten 9 pages into this thread without a simple answer to these questions, particularly on the most vexed issue of all about Tasmania.

My vision for North Melbourne Football Club is for it to be a successful, community focused club with an informed and engaged membership. As far as games in Tasmania, I would not accept any increase.

To reiterate, my pitch for election is a totally separate issue from the one at hand.

The current board self-selects and appoints itself, and has acted to prevent any challenge.

Why?

If they feel they have done a good job, what could they possibly have to fear from my challenge?

As I have pointed out, I have no alignment to any 'powerbrokers' or what have you.

I'm just a bloke with a GA membership who thinks he might have something to contribute to the collective descison making of the board of directors, and hopefully to provide some assurance to members that the board will be responsive and accountable.

If you think the status quo is fine, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Winterlong]

Also to reiterate - the retirement of Glenn Archer created a vacancy, which would normally lead to an election.

The board elected to shrink itself rather than leave a seat open for election.

Unusual.

 

[ferball]

Staggered that we’ve gotten 9 pages into this thread without a simple answer to these questions, particularly on the most vexed issue of all about Tasmania.

This is a very good point.

Winterlong - how many more games would you sell to Tassie?

 

[ferball]

Scratch that i just read your reply.

Cheers.

 

[Winterlong]

Someone mentioned Caroline Carnegie in this thread who had a very narrow loss for NMFC board (~ 2011?) but is currently on the Melbourne Victory board.

What is your take on Julie Laycock who was appointed to the board 27/09/2011 without a member vote prior to the election? From what I recall, Fulvio and Head stood down and the board went from 8 to 7. Laycock was direct appointed prior to the election and it went down to the wire. If no one had nominated, a direct appointment would have been elected to the NMFC unopposed. Now the nomination can be blocked by a committee.

This kind of reminds me of Gerald Ford who direct appointed to VP and President without being elected to either and then pardoned Nixon.

The nominations committee has no power to reject incumbent board directors (if they would anyway).

Unless there is major change, I predict that all directors nearing their term limit will resign slightly early, the replacements appointed mid term, any challengers will be vetoed prior to the AGM and the whole circus will continue.

Unless there is major change.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

The nominations committee has no power to reject incumbent board directors (if they would anyway).

Unless there is major change, I predict that all directors nearing their term limit will resign slightly early, the replacements appointed mid term, any challengers will be vetoed prior to the AGM and the whole circus will continue.

Unless there is major change.

So, the constitution/board enables a boys club. All pigs are equal but some...

 

[Themanbun]

The dude who is not glued to his screen didn't answer my grilling him about his election pitch immediately, he must be hiding something!

Come on guys. He's answering, as far as I can see, the stuff most pertinent to the nominations committees power and has stated several times that his election pitch would be up to the members to decide. He's triaging questions, sure, but he doesn't seem to be doing so in a sinister way, and has in fact gotten to those questions as I type this.

 

[Yoko and me]

That's not true.

There's a lot I disagree with him about, but one of the reasons he is constantly on about wrt this gender stuff is legitimate and worth considering (even tho I think he is wrong about it in these circumstances.)

Fair enough. I was a bit harsh

 

[arden station]

Others will know more but my understanding is that a helluva lot of work was done by a previous board member and QC to change the club from the previous private ownership structure through shares to the member controlled organisation it is supposed to be today. I don't think he envisaged that nominating for the board would become the opaque, People's Republic of China-style process it has evidently become today. Guanxi.

 

[ferball]

You have to remember that most members (including me, admittedly until recently) just want to go to games and shout "Go Roos". 90% of North Members have no idea/don't care what goes on behind closed doors.

And really there is nothing wrong with that. You have the right to assume the people you trust to run the club will do it in good faith. When that was passed it was a standard thing that a few people recognised as good corporate practice. The thread about it is on the front page atm.

Its only been since with the 4th Hobart game, the shocking membership department, non existant 150th and 20th anniversay celebrations and shitful on field performance that we have seen anything to really make us sit up and go "that's not good enough".

 

[Bigeasy]

You people seriously ****ed up on the watch whilst I was away meditating.

I am disappointed in ALL of you.

Weak as piss Tef

 

[Limerick]

Would any member whose platform contained a "no increase in the number of games to tassie" get passed the INC? I say this assuming that all else on his/her platform was in sync with the current board thinking.

 

[Luke72]

Do we have a lawyer on the board? Most clubs seem to and while I don’t like them as a general rule it might be useful especially when deciding whether to challenge suspensions and what not.

I suspect that Wangman didn’t offer anything particularly different and that was reason enough for their dismissal. It would have been polite to respond with reasons why but realistically if they allowed everyone to apply to sit on the board to offer the man in the bleachers perspective they would open up a Pandora’s box.

I support a challenge to the system but I would like to know it was on the back of a new and innovative approach.

 

[Themanbun]

I suspect that Wangman didn’t offer anything particularly different
.

That SHOULD be what we decide, through the election process.

 

[Val Keating]

My vision for North Melbourne Football Club is for it to be a successful, community focused club with an informed and engaged membership. As far as games in Tasmania, I would not accept any increase.i

To reiterate, my pitch for election is a totally separate issue from the one at hand.

The current board self-selects and appoints itself, and has acted to prevent any challenge.

Why?

If they feel they have done a good job, what could they possibly have to fear from my challenge?

As I have pointed out, I have no alignment to any 'powerbrokers' or what have you.

I'm just a bloke with a GA membership who thinks he might have something to contribute to the collective descison making of the board of directors, and hopefully to provide some assurance to members that the board will be responsive and accountable.

If you think the status quo is fine, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think “just a bloke with a GA membership who thinks he might have something to contribute to the collective descison making of the board of directors” has a lot to do with why they knocked you back.

 

[Luke72]

That SHOULD be what we decide, through the election process.

I don’t disagree, I just think it might be why they dismissed the application so quickly.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Weak as piss Tef

Yeah, s**t go I know.

 

[archerboy]

When was the last time members elected someone to the board?

 

[big_e]

I don’t disagree, I just think it might be why they dismissed the application so quickly.

The argument is that that's not what the nomination committee should be there for.

 

[ferball]

I don’t disagree, I just think it might be why they dismissed the application so quickly.

I think one thing he offers that is completely different, based on what he has said here, is the perspective of an ordinary member. So you would assume that means things like the coffee cart, the shonky merch this year, the slow creep of games to Hobart, the performance of the membership department, the treatment of the clubs 150th year of existence and the 20 year anniversary of our last flag would be the sort of things he mentions are unacceptable and tries to fix.

I'd hope so anyway.

They seem to be the main concerns among members here and IRL.

Besides on field performance.

Which is also house right now.

 

[R00StaR]

Don’t want to derail yet another thread with politics, but those ‘shitholes’ have been throughly interfered with by the US military and CIA, economic sanctions etc etc. It’s not as simple as you make out - capitalism needs exploited populations to thrive: these people actually prop up the system that then uses violence to keep them down. You don’t just have rival systems operating at full capacity - capitalism is always expanding (ya know, constant growth) and so effects different people in different ways. Back on topic now but eh.

Complete rubbish. The govt sanctioned fiat money monoloply needs to ever expand. So not allowing these other wise utopias to be exploited with sanctions is to blame. Delusional socialists, it never works because........not real socialism, bad white people, capitalism blah blah.

If we traded my apples for your oranges using some sort of a currency, that is capitalism. Capitalism is freedom. You see under capitalism you're allowed to start up Commi burgers and pay the janitor as much as the CEO. Good luck with that. But socilaism doesnt allow us to freely trade, someone has to come in and take their cut, redistribute....its oppressive, kills initiative and is anti-freedom at its core.

 

[ferball]

Complete rubbish. The govt sanctioned fiat money monoloply needs to ever expand. So not allowing these other wise utopias to be exploited with sanctions is to blame. Delusional socialists, it never works because........not real socialism, bad white people, capitalism blah blah.

If we traded my apples for your oranges using some sort of a currency, that is capitalism. Capitalism is freedom. You see under capitalism you're allowed to start up Commi burgers and pay the janitor as much as the CEO. Good luck with that. But socilaism doesnt allow us to freely trade, someone has to come in and take their cut, redistribute....its oppressive, kills initiative and is anti-freedom at its core.

Wow. You've solved humanity.

 

[Orange Peanut]

Dear Mr Wangmann

Thanks for your application to run for election to the NMFC board.

Unfortunately, after consultation with the committee, we have decided not to endorse your application.

Blah blah skills experience point of difference blah blah

Thank you for your ongoing support of our great football club, and best wishes for the future.

Kind Regards
Common B. Courtesy

 

[Gumble Frankieton]

Dear Mr Wangmann

Thanks for your application to run for election to the NMFC board.

Unfortunately, after consultation with the committee, we have decided not to endorse your application.

Blah blah skills experience point of difference blah blah

Thank you for your ongoing support of our great football club, and best wishes for the future.

Kind Regards
Common B. Courtesy

Yep, wouldn't have been too hard to do.
Maybe they delegated the job of replying to the mob that's doing such a wonderful job with memberships this year.