People going on about Iemma being a Dragons supporter/member.
Marroun who the Football Club endorsed to the Leagues Club board is not only a Tigers supporter/member, but also a player sponsor for them.
I know it’s the leagues club. Why are they wanting to add extra people on the board? It’s never been done in our history. Why’s this clown trying to change it? And it’s only the most successful club around because people in the area are chronic gamblers. That has fuck all to do with any of the board members.
Previously they haven't needed to add additional people to the board, because the Football Club Board could be trusted with money, the assets, and the balance of power on Leagues Club board.
But when you (as a football club board) are:
- endorsing and giving board positions to people who have previously been bankrupt and been banned from junior games (and then lie and try to avoid answering why).
- promoting votes for someone who has been banned for life from trading as a motor dealer by DFT.
- promoting votes for someone who has previously cost the club $500,000 in fines, a compete season, and $5 million in legal fees, whilst making (reportedly) $1 million personally off the fiasco.
- endorsing someone who had knowledge of the salary cap rort and ignored it.
it creates genuine concern for not only your ability to govern a board properly, but how you will handle money/assets/balance of power in the future.
Not withstanding that last time some of the names associated and promoted by Football Club Board were at the club, they employed family into roles and paid them handsomely for it.
Peponis has made the call on this to make it harder for Football Club Board to gain a majority vote on the board by default.
As it stood, with 7 board members and 4 endorsed by Football Club, there was a 4 to 3 majority regardless of the election results.
With the new changes there is now 9 board members. 2 fixed, 4 endorsed, and 3 up for vote. That means currently there is only 4 majority. If the Football Club was to win majority voting rights, they would need to legitimately win 1/3 member elected positions on the board.
If the members decide "nope" and vote for say Arthur Coorey/Peponis/McMahon/Mortimer (and you'd have to assume Mortimer and Peponis have the numbers), then it becomes potentially a split board.
My understanding (and I am happy to stand corrected) is that the 2 directors appointed don't have voting rights per se on issues, and are more there for governance. However given the imbalance between 4 endorsed and 3 member elected votes, the appointed 2 directors can step in and vote accordingly to balance out a decision.
If that makes sense.