NEW Peter De Rauch letter and Proxy Form

[Wrath]

Is there any reason why we can't just get it right the first time?

Has to be down to one of two reasons:

1. The club does not have the right people advising them on corporate governance and running board elections in an open and transparent environment. The club for a long time has not had to deal with issues of this nature publicly and really needed to get the right people to advise them on procedures and scheduling. Eugene can hide behind the current set of procedures, but you don't have to be blind freddy to know that's all smokes and mirrors.

or

2. The club does have the right advisors to ensure they get the result they want. They are working within the rules but using the system to their advantage. I am not sure if this is the case but you can't discount it entirely.

Either way, I just hope the club learns from all of this and gets it right for the next election. It's not the sort of stuff we want so much focus on, especially when it creates so much angst.

Happy home is a happy home!

Wrath

 

[snrub]

Horace its simple. 3 years ago HBW was on the inside as dad was a board member. Now he's on the outer.

3 years agos Pharro was on the outer. Now his mates the chairman.

Its funny how power corrupts ones view of 'fair'.

4 years ago, Rick Aylett was a mate. I was a coterie member then. The so-called inner-scrotum. No different to today - just as much power then as now. So how does that work?

Let's call a spade a spade here. Many of you are having a bitch because your friend Davo is struggling. Frankly, I'm seeing the PDR thing playing out on a whole different level. WANM people feeling a sense of entitlement for some reason. You need to Google Irene Chatfield. She was not entitled. Neither is WANM.

You guys have to give up your addiction to drama. It's like you only have relevance when there's something wrong. Like the club won't need you if everything is going well. That's sad.

And FFS Wednesday, please stop whining.

 

[The OBSTacle]

Let's call a spade a spade here. Many of you are having a bitch because your friend Davo is struggling.

That's certainly how I see it.

Frankly, I'm seeing the PDR thing playing out on a whole different level.

At least PDR has been proactive instead of just relying on playing the victim card.

WANM people feeling a sense of entitlement for some reason. You need to Google Irene Chatfield. She was not entitled. Neither is WANM.

IMO, I think the WANM crew have a waaaaay overblown sense of their own importance in relation to the Gold Coast scenario. They project an image of a group of people that sit around slapping each other on the back all the time.

You guys have to give up your addiction to drama. It's like you only have relevance when there's something wrong. Like the club won't need you if everything is going well. That's sad.

And FFS Wednesday, please stop whining.

General Anxiety Disorder (GAD) is generally held to be prevelant in 3% of the Australian population.

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is an anxiety disorder that is characterized by excessive, uncontrollable and often irrational worry about everyday things that is disproportionate to the actual source of worry. This excessive worry often interferes with daily functioning, as individuals suffering GAD typically anticipate disaster, and are overly concerned about everyday matters such as health issues, money, death, family problems, friend problems, relationship problems or work difficulties.[1] They often exhibit a variety of physical symptoms, including fatigue, fidgeting, headaches, nausea, numbness in hands and feet, muscle tension, muscle aches, difficulty swallowing, bouts of difficulty breathing, difficulty concentrating, trembling, twitching, irritability, agitation, sweating, restlessness, insomnia, hot flashes, and rashes and inability to fully control the anxiety. (ICD-10.[2] These symptoms must be consistent and on-going, persisting at least 6 months, for a formal diagnosis of GAD to be introduced.[1] Generalised anxiety disorder is estimated to occur in 5% of the general population. Women are generally more affected than men (Vanin, Helsley, 2008).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_anxiety_disorder#cite_note-2

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and/or medications are usually succesful in managing this condition.

 

[GarnerSmash]

I think it is entirely appropriate to question the merits of the process to this point and the reasoning behind the actions of the club in releasing a proxy form without all parties included. I think it is important to have a process that is fair and equitable to all nominees however I do not think that it is appropriate to automatically assume that anyone is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the members and as such call the integrity of the incumbents into question. I for one intend on sending an email to the club asking that the process be altered in the future to ensure that it is fair and equitable to all. Regardless of what is accepted practice in the AFL for this kind of activity I expect my club to conduct itself in a manner that is beyond reproach and I intend on letting the club know this.

I see a lot of emotion being poured into these threads, with name calling and accusations flying left right and centre. All I can say to this, after regretfully taking part initially in some of these activities, is that anyone who forms their opinions of any of the nominees based on the posts of folk on here, especially to the point of 'hating the incumbents' because of two posters, needs their head checked. I can only assume that some of the posters on here are adults, but it is getting increasing difficult to tell the adults from the children.

 

[j flex roo]

4 years ago, Rick Aylett was a mate. I was a coterie member then. The so-called inner-scrotum. No different to today - just as much power then as now. So how does that work?

Let's call a spade a spade here. Many of you are having a bitch because your friend Davo is struggling. Frankly, I'm seeing the PDR thing playing out on a whole different level. WANM people feeling a sense of entitlement for some reason. You need to Google Irene Chatfield. She was not entitled. Neither is WANM.

You guys have to give up your addiction to drama. It's like you only have relevance when there's something wrong. Like the club won't need you if everything is going well. That's sad.

And FFS Wednesday, please stop whining.

Therein lies your own attitude - that of entitlement.

Your scarcity mindset has you thinking ‘who is taking ground away from me’. By your mere assertion that for whatever reason We Are North Melbourne seem to be in it only to feather its individual members’ nests, you reveal your combative mindset – it’s an ‘us versus them’ world for you.

The sense of entitlement We Are North Melbourne has is the inherent entitlement of the members to vote on matters that have long term consequences for the club – this includes the open and transparent election of the committee.

Wheaton’s candidacy, originally, was based on an ordinary member wanting to have a go and pitch in for the club he loves.

It was only subsequent events that have turned this election into the so called ‘drama’ it has become.

I endorse Wheaton this time around – however, if in future years he runs again, and does not run on a platform I like, or that is not in the interests of a member controlled entity, I will hastily change my vote for someone who does.

The present Board has done a great job – and I wish to see the current plans for the future get going and bear fruit. However, its actions recently have disappointed me, and this entire debate is one that just has to be had.

I would like to bulk of the board, as it stands, be re-elected – but not at the expense of the members voice.

Put yourself into the shoes of a first year members, or perhaps a supporter giving serious consideration to joining up for the first time. They see news reports about potential bias existing at club level, affecting the voice of the members. What would you think?

If it turns off even 1 or 2 out of 10 current or potential members, it’s a net loss to the club. That’s bad.

And don’t give us that bull about “well those members and supporters should just join and support the NMFC unconditionally”. Yes, perhaps they should – however, anyone with any business sense at all would know that reality a land far removed from ideal, as is the case here.

That’s the crux of the argument.

Your valour in defending the ‘protocol’ is admirable, and the club needs people like you to always be around, to support it always.

But power without checks and balances is folly, and that’s what organisations like WANM exist for.

 

[Wrath]

Let's call a spade a spade here. Many of you are having a bitch because your friend Davo is struggling. Frankly, I'm seeing the PDR thing playing out on a whole different level. WANM people feeling a sense of entitlement for some reason. You need to Google Irene Chatfield. She was not entitled. Neither is WANM.

Not sure what any of that has to do with the fact that the process for this elections stinks and opens itself up for ridicule. It treats all supporters of the North Melbourne Football Club with contempt trying to say that the process is open and transparent when it is clear that is not.

This has nothing to do with WANM, PDR, David Wheaton or the current directors up for election, it is all about the process and its perceived lack of transparency.

Given the excellent work done to date by the board, it is a shame that this has occurred. As l said previously, l just hope they learn from it and get it right the next time round.

Wrath

 

[The OBSTacle]

You gotta love it how the WANMites that are squealing in the media about the process, are now blaming the board for any potential drop off in future member numbers.

To quote the great Denis Pagan, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining".

Your actions are damaging this football club, and it's a price you are selfishly forcing every other North supporter to pay, because of your absurd misguided zealotry.

God help this football club if any of you actually ever get any power.

It treats all supporters of the North Melbourne Football Club with contempt trying to say that the process is open and transparent when it is clear that is not.

You do not speak on behalf of myself or any other North supporter that I know.

Please stop destroying this club with your delusions of grandeur.

 

[j flex roo]

You gotta love it how the WANMites that are squealing in the media about the process, are now blaming the board for any potential drop off in future member numbers.

To quote the great Denis Pagan, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining".

Your actions are damaging this football club, and it's a price you are selfishly forcing every other North supporter to pay, because of your absurd misguided zealotry.

God help this football club if any of you actually ever get any power.


You do not speak on behalf of myself or any other North supporter that I know.

Please stop destroying this club with your delusions of grandeur.

Nah.

Just like the whistle-blower always does the damage, according to some.

Undo the damage now, before the rot sets in.

The beauty of free speech, in cases such as your speech, is that talk is cheap.

 

[Wrath]

You gotta love it how the WANMites that are squealing in the media about the process, are now blaming the board for any potential drop off in future member numbers.

God help this football club if any of you actually ever get any power.

Do you actually believe all this stuff you write?

According to you, all supporters are supposed to just suck it up and accept whatever is fed to us.

My question to you is why do you and your alies fear the election process?

Another question for you to answer is what message does this send to any other prospective person that in the future may want to join the board who's credentials are much better than the current directors and their contribution would be invaluable to the club? Do you think they would step up to the plate to nominate themselves and expose themselves to such unprofessionalism?

How you answer the above questions will tell me whether you have a balanced view of the situation or you are just here to push an agenda for some buddies.

Wrath

 

[Wrath]

You do not speak on behalf of myself or any other North supporter that I know.

Please stop destroying this club with your delusions of grandeur.

I don't speak on behalf of anyone other than myself. I am not a puppet as some appear to be on here.

If you think my comments are about representation of an entire community and not about what is fair and equitable then you really don't get it.

Take your bias away and apply the current situation to an environment where you can have a clear objective view on the matter and l would be amazed if you would defend the process as aggressively as you do this one.

Enjoy!

Wrath

 

[Limerick]

1. You gotta love it how the WANMites that are squealing in the media about the process, are now blaming the board for any potential drop off in future member numbers.

2. Your actions are damaging this football club, and it's a price you are selfishly forcing every other North supporter to pay, because of your absurd misguided zealotry.

3. You do not speak on behalf of myself or any other North supporter that I know.

1. I am assuming that you are referring to David Wheaton's media release regarding the NMFC election process and other poster's comments concerning this in terms of the Clubs image. Be assured that the concern regarding the election process is far wider than WANM or any other supporter group.

2. NO The fact that the Club has run a flawed process and has defended it that has the potential to damage the reputation of the Board, Administration and the Club. However this can easily be rectified by changing the process for 2011.

3. You need to get out more.

A further change required is to have the election results (number of votes achieved by each candidate) published. The Club refused to do this in 2008.

 

[The OBSTacle]

Nah.

Just like the whistle-blower always does the damage, according to some.

Undo the damage now, before the rot sets in.

The beauty of free speech, in cases such as your speech, is that talk is cheap.

Let's REALLY break this down.

You are prepared to destabilise the club over an issue that is dead and buried and of no significance now.

These are the facts.

You're not "whistle blowers", you're much closer to Whitehouse hawks screaming about WOMD.

 

[The OBSTacle]

Do you actually believe all this stuff you write?

According to you, all supporters are supposed to just suck it up and accept whatever is fed to us.

Do you ever NOT exagerrate?!?

I don't speak on behalf of all North supporters, however, this is something that you believe you have the god given right to do, and I quote:

It treats all supporters of the North Melbourne Football Club with contempt

WTF do you get off speaking on everybodys behalf?

Keep your delusions to yourself mate.

My question to you is why do you and your alies fear the election process?

Again, more delusions. Where have I stated this?

Another question for you to answer is what message does this send to any other prospective person that in the future may want to join the board who's credentials are much better than the current directors and their contribution would be invaluable to the club?

It sends the message that they would want to prepare for their own campaign instead of expecting to have it spoon fed to them in the first place.

De Rauch sure as hell knew what the score was and mobilised his campaign. Perhaps Wheaton should do the same instead of relying on playing the victim in the media and dragging the club down in the process?

Do you think they would step up to the plate to nominate themselves and expose themselves to such unprofessionalism?

If something like this were to stop a strong candidate from nominating, then I would be happy to expose the drama queen early in the process and weed them out. IMO, they were obviously not North board material in the first place.

How you answer the above questions will tell me whether you have a balanced view of the situation or you are just here to push an agenda for some buddies.

Wrath

I have met and shaken hands with James Brayshaw on one occasion. I have never met Mark Brayshaw or Trevor O'hoy before in my life, as far as I know.

 

[j flex roo]

Let's REALLY break this down.

You are prepared to destabilise the club over an issue that is dead and buried and of no significance now.

These are the facts.

You're not "whistle blowers", you're much closer to Whitehouse hawks screaming about WOMD.

1. This seems to be where our opinions differ. It is quite significant.

2. Facts? Perhaps in your mind. I would call it an opinion.

3. I wasn't referring to those opposing the flawed process as whistle blowers, per se. More that those who utilise unfair process or flawed systems to thier own advantage (which is the destructive behaviour), will always blame those who call them out on it and demand change. It isn't those who desire change that are the ones damaging the brand.

 

[The OBSTacle]

1. I am assuming that you are referring to David Wheaton's media release regarding the NMFC election process and other poster's comments concerning this in terms of the Clubs image. Be assured that the concern regarding the election process is far wider than WANM or any other supporter group.

I'll just "be assured" shall I?

Okay, then you can "be assured" that I have fairies living at the bottom of my garden.

2. NO The fact that the Club has run a flawed process and has defended it that has the potential to damage the reputation of the Board, Administration and the Club. However this can easily be rectified by changing the process for 2011.

IF the club has "run a flawed process" then I suggest you stop bickering on the internet and get the lawyers involved. If you have no legal leg to stand on, then I suggest you get on with life.

3. You need to get out more.

"Get out" as in to the regular WANM circle jerk?

A further change required is to have the election results (number of votes achieved by each candidate) published. The Club refused to do this in 2008.

Again, if you have to legal leg to stand on, then get the lawyers involved.

 

[The OBSTacle]

1. This seems to be where our opinions differ. It is quite significant.

Agreed, but IMO, it really is at the crux of this entire matter.

2. Facts? Perhaps in your mind. I would call it an opinion.

Hey, you just stated the matter as "quite significant" in your previous sentence.

3. I wasn't referring to those opposing the flawed process as whistle blowers, per se.

When you can prove that the process is "flawed", then it's "flawed".

Until then it is a figment of your imagination.

More that those who utilise unfair process or flawed systems to thier own advantage (which is the destructive behaviour), will always blame those who call them out on it and demand change. It isn't those who desire change that are the ones damaging the brand.

Unfair, flawed, destructive, damaging.......do you think you might be a little short on negative adjectives?

It isn't those who desire change that are the ones damaging the brand.

YES! IT! IS!

When those who desire change are in the majority, then they may be viewed as liberators.

When they are not in the majority, they are misrepresenting the membership and damaging the brand.

 

[j flex roo]

Again, if you have to legal leg to stand on, then get the lawyers involved.

You urge those not of your view to back down in one post, then bait people to brief a lawyer to have a good ol' fashioned Supreme Court brawl.

Contradictory and tends to implicate your muddled logic.

By all means, however, please power on. You're providing many readers with some light comedy for the day.

 

[j flex roo]

Post #91 is possibly the worst post in the history of this thread.

You have misunderstood much of my contention.

I look forward to you one-upping yourself shortly.

 

[Hoser]

If something like this were to stop a strong candidate from nominating, then I would be happy to expose the drama queen early in the process and weed them out. IMO, they were obviously not North board material in the first place.

No offence mate, I admire this point you make, but I have also read on this board that JB would potentially step down if MB gets knocked off. Is that North material? Too much crap on here is the message being sent to me.

Regardless, as has been pointed out by numerous people, the election process is not ideal. Whether the bias is just perceived or actual is kind of irrellevant, either scenario is not really good enough when we as a club could easily fix it.

 

[The OBSTacle]

You urge those not of your view to back down in one post, then bait people to brief a lawyer to have a good ol' fashioned Supreme Court brawl.

Contradictory and tends to implicate your muddled logic.

By all means, however, please power on. You're providing many readers with some light comedy for the day.

The other way of looking at this response is that you are a drama queen with no logical basis to your crap.

Well, I'm calling on you to back up your claims. If there really has been some huge miscarraige of justice then I am calling on you liberate the club from tyranny.

Is this challenge beyond you?

 

[Arden St]

It sends the message that they would want to prepare for their own campaign instead of expecting to have it spoon fed to them in the first place.

So its OK for the club/members to foot the $20,000 bill for the incumbents mailout, who don't pay a cent themselves. Yet if a member candidate wishes only to have the same opportunity of being involved in a mailout, then they should be expected to pay the $20,000 out of their own pocket?

Is that what you are actually saying?

And under this arrangement, who are the ones being spoonfed again?

 

[The OBSTacle]

No offence mate, I admire this point you make, but I have also read on this board that JB would potentially step down if MB gets knocked off. Is that North material? Too much crap on here is the message being sent to me.

1) I have not seen this comment ratified by JB, and as far as I know, it was just one persons opinion.

2) If JB, or any other board member, honestly believes that the symbiosis of a particular board is so poor, or out of sync, as to render the management of the club impotent, then JB or the other board member would actually be doing the right thing by the club in stepping down.

Regardless, as has been pointed out by numerous people, the election process is not ideal. Whether the bias is just perceived or actual is kind of irrellevant, either scenario is not really good enough when we as a club could easily fix it.

IMO, it's irrelevant. The same band of whingers this time, would find some largely innocuous strand of thread to pick away at next time in order to satisfy their tantrums.

Whinging is much easier than actually getting up off your arse and doing something proactive.

They all know what the problems are, but they don't have a single ****ing solution between them. They just want the power to neuter the people that do actually get up off their arses and seek solutions.

 

[The OBSTacle]

So its OK for the club/members to foot the $20,000 bill for the incumbents mailout, who don't pay a cent themselves. Yet if a member candidate wishes only to have the same opportunity of being involved in a mailout, then they should be expected to pay the $20,000 out of their own pocket?

Is that what you are actually saying?

And under this arrangement, who are the ones being spoonfed again?

More exagerrations.

The mail out is to inform people about the board election.

1% of the content of the thing mentions the current boards names.

That is it.

Storm in a teacup.

 

[Horace]

Let's REALLY break this down.

You are prepared to destabilise the club over an issue that is dead and buried and of no significance now.

These are the facts.

You're not "whistle blowers", you're much closer to Whitehouse hawks screaming about WOMD.

The issue presumably that you speak of is the proposed 7 games in Hobart deal and how it was introduced. It may well be dead and buried, in my opinion let's hope so.

The problem with that issue is that whereas you and others were happy with the process that underpinned it, many others were not.

The outcome of the board attempting to negotiate an arrangement of that nature is that some members - and who knows whether they are a minority or a majority - felt a sense of betrayal and disenfranchment by it happening without any consultation. I for one do not want to go through the tiresome debate once again of whether the board was right or wrong in how they went about it. That's been done to death.

The outcome however is for those who feel that sense of disenfranchment, the previous great trust that they had in the current board has been substantially shaken.

Now that we have all of the argy bargy with this election and the process with it, the trust factor is even further shaken and what we are seeing in this and other threads is an expression of that distrust.

I for one cannot help but feel that this is a very unfortunate outcome for the club.

 

[The OBSTacle]

Fair enough Horace.

On voting day all will be revealed.

If the incumbents are returned with a strong majority then the folks in the Wheaton camp will have read the mood of the membership wrongly and I expect those that have played a role in the s**t stirring in the media to line up in here and apologise for destabilising the club.