Letter from Peter De Rauch

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

Why is that?

I had heard from an ex board member that RJ and the Brayshaws had fallen out prior to RJ leaving the board. He left only a few weeks after.

For Ron to now give PdR the database with the intention of running against Mark Brayshaw it gives that mail a bit more credence.

I would also like to point out that when RJ did the same thing while supporting the Brayshaw ticket there was no club email sent out to say that the club did not endorse it. To me that is a clear double standard.

I'm sure there is plenty more to come in this saga.

 

[Twinkletoes]

I think we all have a fair idea who gave PDR the members database.

It is now becoming clear as to why RJ left the board.

I doubt he, or the club, would use his "health" as a smokescreen. Whatever the motivation was for providing the database info, I'm certainly willing to cut HIM some slack. We'd be absolutely rooted as a club without him being so heavily involved for the past 40 odd years.

Hopefully the club, and the individuals involved, have learnt a very harsh lesson here, and that the upcoming board elections will now be held well and truly above board.

 

[The Zebra]

I would also like to point out that when RJ did the same thing while supporting the Brayshaw ticket there was no club email sent out to say that the club did not endorse it. To me that is a clear double standard.

That was under a different admin (and a poor one at that).

Hard to have a double standard when they were not there for the first part.

It was arrogant and brazen by PDR and suggests to me he thinks he has some ownership where the club is concerned. A board member like that (with an ego) could be really de-stabilising. It was also arrogant and brazen by Ron when he did it as well, but we are talking vey differet times and different circumstances.

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

That was under a different admin (and a poor one at that).

Hard to have a double standard when they were not there for the first part.

It was arrogant and brazen by PDR and suggests to me he thinks he has some ownership where the club is concerned. A board member like that (with an ego) could be really de-stabilising. It was also arrogant and brazen by Ron when he did it as well, but we are talking vey differet times and different circumstances.

I'm not sure he thinks he has any ownership over the club, let's not forget this is a man who, along with several others, put in several hundred thousand dollars in the 80's (big money nowadays) and then was happy to accept zilch for his shares when the club was returned to the members.

I think Peter is desperate to help and for whatever reason JB is trying to keep him off the board. Now I trust that JB always acts in the best interests for the club but I have to wonder why someone so passionate about the NMFC with the business acumen that Peter has is being blocked from joining and the only thing I can think of is the "Yes Men" theory that was suggested previously in this thread.

One thing that does surprise me though is that PdR went for Mark Brayshaw. I would have thought that Trevor O'Hoy would have been his best target given he has a dubious history of supporting the club and was not exactly a successful CEO at Fosters.

 

[The OBSTacle]

I think Peter is desperate to help and for whatever reason JB is trying to keep him off the board.

This makes no sense. If Peters ideas were so brilliant, then there is no way I could see JB and Co. knocking them back.

Now I trust that JB always acts in the best interests for the club but I have to wonder why someone so passionate about the NMFC with the business acumen that Peter has is being blocked from joining and the only thing I can think of is the "Yes Men" theory that was suggested previously in this thread.

Peter hasn't been "blocked" by anything. As I understand it he is yet to nominate for a position on the board. How can you block someone that isn't a candidate in the first place?

 

[snrub]

A couple of points...

It may well be the case that the disc containing names and addresses from the database has RJ's fingerprints but I don't think that is necessarily established fact or even a reasonable assumption at this point for one simple reason... it's a different and updated list compared with the one that was used by RJ almost 4 years ago.

And one reason JB might be keeping PDR at arm's length in terms of board vacancies is the terms that were more or less agreed for handing back shares by certain individuals who were not exactly friendly with PDR over a 25 year period. The likes of Mark Dawson and his cronies, who conspired to remove PDR from the board back in early 2007 and were witnessed celebrating their "victory", apparently made it a condition of forfeiting their control of the club that PDR not be given an easy ride back onto the board. While that stinks, I also respect JB for honouring an arrangement made, even though it was under less than honourable circumstances.

 

[ThePezDispenser]

Why would there be documentation with just names and addresses?

The club have all contact info these days - Email, phone, mobile etc. Just saying.

 

[The Zebra]

I'm not sure he thinks he has any ownership over the club, let's not forget this is a man who, along with several others, put in several hundred thousand dollars in the 80's (big money nowadays) and then was happy to accept zilch for his shares when the club was returned to the members.

That is exactly my point. He has done that (and more) and because of it he may feel some entitlementment. It is a pretty obvious thing to consult the club before mailing out to its member list unless you think it is your right. Or did he ask the club and still go against its advice? Either way, for all PDR has done (and it is a lot and I think he is a great man), he has no more entitlement than anyone else until elected now we are member based.

I think Peter is desperate to help and for whatever reason JB is trying to keep him off the board. Now I trust that JB always acts in the best interests for the club but I have to wonder why someone so passionate about the NMFC with the business acumen that Peter has is being blocked from joining and the only thing I can think of is the "Yes Men" theory that was suggested previously in this thread.

You can call it yes men or you can call it united board.

If I was uncomfortable with the board, I would be all for shaking things up, but to put someone on there that is a risk of destablisation just for the sake of it is crazy from my point of view.

You just have to look at clubs like Richmond and Carlton and think impact that a de-stablise board had for so many years. We can't afford that and unless there are some very compelling reasons that have not been outlined yet, I can't see why anyone would want that.

 

[Mr Reliable]

A couple of points...

........

And one reason JB might be keeping PDR at arm's length in terms of board vacancies is the terms that were more or less agreed for handing back shares by certain individuals who were not exactly friendly with PDR over a 25 year period. The likes of Mark Dawson and his cronies, who conspired to remove PDR from the board back in early 2007 and were witnessed celebrating their "victory", apparently made it a condition of forfeiting their control of the club that PDR not be given an easy ride back onto the board. While that stinks, I also respect JB for honouring an arrangement made, even though it was under less than honourable circumstances.

The first bolded part makes sense. Is that why some of the old board members appear to be "protected" from a member vote?

As for the second part, what can Dawson and his cronies do if JB does not or cannot honour the dishonourable agreement?

 

[snrub]

The first bolded part makes sense. Is that why some of the old board members appear to be "protected" from a member vote?

As for the second part, what can Dawson and his cronies do if JB does not or cannot honour the dishonourable agreement?

I don't think the old board members are being protected for that reason but you might be right. However it is worth noting that there are only 2 board members in that category - Fulvio Inserra and Stephen Head. The others were either voted in by membership or were casual appointments made under the authority of the Chairman.

I don't think Dawson and co have any recourse but what JB is doing imo is being seen to favour neither the Dawson faction, nor PDR. He is trying to set a new course where those old counter productive feuds have no impact upon the running of the club. And the best way to do that may well be to discourage either Dawson or PDR from running for a board position.

 

[shintemaster]

I don't think Dawson and co have any recourse but what JB is doing imo is being seen to favour neither the Dawson faction, nor PDR. He is trying to set a new course where those old counter productive feuds have no impact upon the running of the club. And the best way to do that may well be to discourage either Dawson or PDR from running for a board position.

I think that's the closest to the mark. Whether it's the right or best course, well that's hard to say now although you can't fault the logic or in many ways argue with the record. We were poorly run for a long time for whatever reason. It would be a pity to change things now on a whim when we're running such a tight ship.

 

[gokangas]

Interesting reading following the opinions and speculation in this thread.

I have always felt at ease to know that RJ was on the board and I must say I worry that he isn't there any longer. Would like to see someone not in the block to do a Don Chipp if you like and "keep the barstards honest".

At this stage I will be voting for PdR but I am happy to hear what the three candidates have to say - I can be swayed.

The next few weeks will be very interesting.

 

[gokangas]

A couple of points...

It may well be the case that the disc containing names and addresses from the database has RJ's fingerprints but I don't think that is necessarily established fact or even a reasonable assumption at this point for one simple reason... it's a different and updated list compared with the one that was used by RJ almost 4 years ago.

The list is very recent - last few months.

 

[Devil Fish]

The list is very recent - last few months.

Oscar Schindler = The List.

 

[numchuks]

PDR FTW

 

[Gasometer]

Staggered to come back and see Eugene posted as a newbie

Great effort!

 

[Hoser]

Euge,

Appreciate you coming on here and taking the time to communicate with us. For the purpose of democratic clarity, can you let us know when each director is up for election? The appearance from the outside is that only JB always seems to be being put up for re election whereas some on the board appear to be being protected from the members. I'm pretty sure this will be the third time i will have had the opportunity to vote for JB whereas others haven't ever been elected to the board by the members. Given we are three years on from Dallas Brooks et al shouldn't we now have a fully or at the least majority, member elected board?

Cheers in advance.

W.

Good question that should be brought up at AGM. I don't know of all the politics that appear to be involved here but I know for sure that as a member I shoul be getting a crack at every position on the board in a fair and democratic fashion. This strikes to the heart of being a member owned club. The only power we have is to buy a membership and get a vote. If certain positions are shielded from the vote then our powers are being diluted and that is not good enough and needs to be sorted out.

 

[numchuks]

the baord gets voted on in lots of 3's. so 3 get voted in this year, 3 next year, and 3 the year after. and then we start again.

that's how the Constitution was designed, and most here were happy with it because it meant that the system would avoid massive spills of the baord and promote stability.

when we went to being publicly owned club. JBs board was vote on unopposed for a 3 year term, without elections. so he would have the time to enact his plans to keep the club stable in Melbourne. this is why we havn't had an election since that very first EGM back in 2008.

 

[Tas]

the baord gets voted on in lots of 3's. so 3 get voted in this year, 3 next year, and 3 the year after. and then we start again.

that's how the Constitution was designed, and most here were happy with it because it meant that the system would avoid massive spills of the baord and promote stability.

when we went to being publicly owned club. JBs board was vote on unopposed for a 3 year term, without elections. so he would have the time to enact his plans to keep the club stable in Melbourne. this is why we havn't had an election since that very first EGM back in 2008.

It was in 2007. But, that is right.

I assume part of the deal to hand over the shares was to put the shareholder held positions up last to give them an extra year, I have no issue with that.

The intent of dropping from 7 directors to 6 was to be able to complete the re-election process over two years with an equal number of positions voted on.

I'd like to see the kind of information about the complete board process on the website. From how to nominate, to what kind of information to provide and how that will be distributed to members, etc.

We have come a long way over the last few years, but there is a lot more we can do in terms of making the club and it's procedures more transparent to the membership. I think if there was more information out there then it would reduce the chance that people would feel they need to take matters into their own hands. Sadly, that is what people had to do in the past.

Euge has our eternal gratitude that the club is now in the hands of members. But, I'd like to see more information online and even have our constitution online.

 

[numchuks]

It was in 2007. But, that is right.

I assume part of the deal to hand over the shares was to put the shareholder held positions up last to give them an extra year, I have no issue with that.

The intent of dropping from 7 directors to 6 was to be able to complete the re-election process over two years with an equal number of positions voted on.

I'd like to see the kind of information about the complete board process on the website. From how to nominate, to what kind of information to provide and how that will be distributed to members, etc.

We have come a long way over the last few years, but there is a lot more we can do in terms of making the club and it's procedures more transparent to the membership. I think if there was more information out there then it would reduce the chance that people would feel they need to take matters into their own hands. Sadly, that is what people had to do in the past.

Euge has our eternal gratitude that the club is now in the hands of members. But, I'd like to see more information online and even have our constitution online.

we returned to public ownership towards the end of 08. that was when JB's board was voted in by the membership base, along with the vote to get rid of the shares.

 

[snrub]

we returned to public ownership towards the end of 08. that was when JB's board was voted in by the membership base, along with the vote to get rid of the shares.

Yes an AGM or EGM held at Docklands Stadium in 2008, well after the events surrounding relocation had been settled. As I recall, there was maybe 200 - 300 people there.

 

[Boomerfan99]

Is Peter de Rauch still involved with the club in any capacity?

 

[Twinkletoes]

Is Peter de Rauch still involved with the club in any capacity?

Nup, afaik.

 

[Sideburns Ahern]

Is Peter de Rauch still involved with the club in any capacity?

He has no role with the club and was not a member of the coteries - the Chairman's Club, Match Committee or Shinboner Club in 2018 according to True North magazine. He was also not one of the 24 individuals who underwrote/matched the Arden Street development fundraiser late last year. He has life membership as a Patron of the club courtesy of the share handback deal.

 

[gokangas]

Peter is a great North man. Has put his hand in his pocket for the club many times and big bucks. His blood runs blue and white. I have a lot of love and respect for the man. But he is not the only supporter with big pockets that the club has pissed off. Characters come and go and sometimes the breakup goes two ways. Whilst Peter (and others) are disenfranchised with the club it is never too late. The club would do well to work out a way to bring some of these people back into the fold. Should Peter be a board prospect again? Don't know really. Probably a better role for him somewhere within. I'm not laying blame for this situation either way because I am sure there are faults both sides but we need people like Peter supporting our club.