News New Directors on board the Board

[fabulousphil]

If it's as simple as that, there'd be whole lot of happier people around the place.
The issue is more one of a lack of communication and transparency. The previous chairman who also had strong links to Springfield didn't communicate any of the process in finding a location and the board just came out and said "we're going here". (Pretty much).
From there the process has appeared to be a chairman with commercial interests in the area, hell bent on getting us there. What put a further bad taste in our mouths was when a board spill was imminent, the AFL stepped in and forced upon us a new chairman who we didn't vote for. And wouldn't you know, he's a director at Springfield Land Corp. The push and dream to get the Lions to Springfield was stronger than ever, considering the original deal was incomplete and now horribly short of funds.
On the face of it, we had 2 chairmen in succession with an almost obsessive compulsion to base the Lions in there own piece of real estate and showed little regard for what members had to say. The greatest fear is really that this is their sole focus and the business of football has been on the backburner.
The bottom line is if moving to Springfield is the best outcome for the club, then let's go. It matters little now, whether someone else profits. But we must have a chairman whose primary concern is what's best for the club all round, not just this project.
He may be that person, but from what has been communicated so far it is hard to be confident.

Agreed, it just pretty hard to push a deal where there is percieved bias, they probably felt it was easier to just push it through hopefully unnoticed rather than what has now happened.

Whether the deal is better for the Lions or better for Sharpless i have no idea, but it sure seems pretty good for the Lions.

 

[whatboutbob]

Agreed, it just pretty hard to push a deal where there is percieved bias, they probably felt it was easier to just push it through hopefully unnoticed rather than what has now happened.

Whether the deal is better for the Lions or better for Sharpless i have no idea, but it sure seems pretty good for the Lions.

While you're here, parallels have been drawn to Freo's move. I'd be interested to hear more about that from a Freo supporter's perspective.

 

[Skoob]

Agreed, it just pretty hard to push a deal where there is percieved bias, they probably felt it was easier to just push it through hopefully unnoticed rather than what has now happened.

Whether the deal is better for the Lions or better for Sharpless i have no idea, but it sure seems pretty good for the Lions.

Yeah, the matter of 'to Springfield or not to Springfield' is still a bit contentious, but it isn't the main concern for most. Having people on the board that we can be confident of passionately working for the best interests of the club and listening to its members is more important. Competent people who listen, care and communicate.

 

[POBT]

Every attempt to simplify this issue just highlights that it is not a simple issue. I think many people are looking for a "vote yes or no" type question when the problem is far more nuanced than that.

 

[fabulousphil]

While you're here, parallels have been drawn to Freo's move. I'd be interested to hear more about that from a Freo supporter's perspective.

I think they should have stayed at South Fremantle Oval, but i think they will still have a presence there, but then again i am bit of a romantic when it comes to footy history, South Freo Oval is just a drop punt from the main drag in Freo and a beautiful setting.

The idea seems good, fantastic new facilities at Cockburn.

 

[Roylion]

Clearly, people don't trust Sharpless. That's ok. Neither do I. What I will say is that, for at least one appointment, they did the right thing and only made it a casual vacancy, meaning the people get a say at the AGM.

As far as I understand it any appointment to the Board by the existing board is a casual vacancy and MUST be put to the members at the next AGM if the person so appointed is to continue.

Hopefully a couple of candidates such as Ross Thornton will put themselves up for election in this year's AGM and give the members some sort of choice.

I'd personally also like to see a serving Fitzroy Football Club director appointed to the Lions' board on an advisory basis.

 

[fabulousphil]

Yeah, the matter of 'to Springfield or not to Springfield' is still a bit contentious, but it isn't the main concern for most. Having people on the board that we can be confident of passionately working for the best interests of the club and listening to its members is more important. Competent people who listen, care and communicate.

I get the feeling the new facility at Springfield will also be a leagues style poker machine job as well, i have no problem with that, but i imagine that some members will.

The board has probably decided that poker machines may give the club some breathing room in the not so good years, look at Southport FC in this regard.

 

[notting18]

As far as I understand it any appointment to the Board by the existing board is a casual vacancy and MUST be put to the members at the next AGM if the person so appointed is to continue.
.

Not the case with expertise appointments.

 

[Skoob]

I get the feeling the new facility at Springfield will also be a leagues style poker machine job as well, i have no problem with that, but i imagine that some members will.

The board has probably decided that poker machines may give the club some breathing room in the not so good years, look at Southport FC in this regard.

No immediate plans, certainly not part of the proposed development, but one would think a likely eventuality. Whether at the same site or nearby.

 

[Dom PC]

So let me get this right, the lions will always play at the Gabba, but possibly will have a fantastic almost free million $ facility at Springfield, and has ATM a multi million dollar club at Springwood that turns over millions that will eventually be pumped back into the football club.

What seems to be the problem, no-one really does nothing for free, if Sharpless becomes richer because of the new facility, i would call it a win/win.

Seems to me he is doing it for the Lions and his company, its a not a new thing, it is as old as the world itself.

Your right, we are all idiots for not buying all home brand products as they are the cheapest Just because it is the least expensive option, does not mean it is the best option for the club.

 

[POBT]

As far as I understand it any appointment to the Board by the existing board is a casual vacancy and MUST be put to the members at the next AGM if the person so appointed is to continue.

They could have put Wellington on as an expertise appointment.

 

[whatboutbob]

They could have put Wellington on as an expertise appointment.

True. By the sounds of it they've put Kelly on as an expertise appointment, rather than to fill a casual vacancy because she doesn't meet the 2 year membership requirement for the latter. IMO she sounds like a great appointment to bolster an area in which the club has struggled for years. That's the express purpose of the expertise appointments, so I have no issues with the board making use of it.

The reference to the appointments being unanimous is reassuring too. I can't imagine Lethal letting the club put words in his mouth.

I, for one, am hopeful that this fresh blood on the board, in concert with a new CEO and improved communication from Sharpless are all signals that perhaps the penny has dropped. Time will tell.

 

[Chasing the Dream]

Did anyone else get to meet Christopher Raleigh on Saturday night.

I had a chat for a few minutes and it was quite interesting.

 

[MacMum]

What did you think of him?

 

[Always a Lion]

Did anyone else get to meet Christopher Raleigh on Saturday night.

I had a chat for a few minutes and it was quite interesting.

Christopher Raleigh has nominated himself for a position on the board again, along with incumbents; Ross Thornton, Sarah Kelly and Peter McGregor for the three positions vacated by them (only 3 positions available).

Raleigh, if I recall correctly has posted here before, am I right in thinking he went by Rizzler (or something similar)?

In his statement to members he sites the secret ballot, such as was used to oust Leppa as a major issue he'd like to get rid of. I understand that transparency is key, but in that particular instance I don't have a problem.

Can anyone vouch for him, or any reason why any of the incumbents shouldn't be reinstated?

 

[BRAB]

In my opinion it's a stupid idea to demand blanket transparency in a board situation and the bloke sounded like he was trying to appeal to the more whingy parts of the fanbase so that was enough for me to not put his name down.

 

[Skoob]

Christopher Raleigh has nominated himself for a position on the board again, along with incumbents; Ross Thornton, Sarah Kelly and Peter McGregor for the three positions vacated by them (only 3 positions available).

Raleigh, if I recall correctly has posted here before, am I right in thinking he went by Rizzler (or something similar)?

In his statement to members he sites the secret ballot, such as was used to oust Leppa as a major issue he'd like to get rid of. I understand that transparency is key, but in that particular instance I don't have a problem.

Can anyone vouch for him, or any reason why any of the incumbents shouldn't be reinstated?

Couple of comments in the random thread; https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-random-thread.828625/page-155#post-47989677

 

[dlanod]

Christopher Raleigh has nominated himself for a position on the board again, along with incumbents; Ross Thornton, Sarah Kelly and Peter McGregor for the three positions vacated by them (only 3 positions available).

Raleigh, if I recall correctly has posted here before, am I right in thinking he went by Rizzler (or something similar)?

In his statement to members he sites the secret ballot, such as was used to oust Leppa as a major issue he'd like to get rid of. I understand that transparency is key, but in that particular instance I don't have a problem.

Can anyone vouch for him, or any reason why any of the incumbents shouldn't be reinstated?

He went by Rizzler but also created an alias called Alan Smithee that some might remember too, which is interesting behaviour for someone calling for transparency.

 

[Haso]

He went by Rizzler but also created an alias called Alan Smithee that some might remember too, which is interesting behaviour for someone calling for transparency.

An unimaginative sock name as well. Like a really long slow and obvious wink. References!

 

[notting18]

In my opinion it's a stupid idea to demand blanket transparency in a board situation and the bloke sounded like he was trying to appeal to the more whingy parts of the fanbase so that was enough for me to not put his name down.

Such transparency in the business world is also asking for trouble re commercial in confidence arrangements, etc.

 

[a mayes ing]

Took me the whole 1st page to realise that l was reading posts from 2014...