Consolidated Leagues Club Board Election Thread (Coorey Chairman P29)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,535
Reaction score
6,140
a politician and a banker are the ones who can be trusted to safeguard the club
 

Mr Invisible

Banned
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
0
Reaction score
47
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the top 4 voted were endorsed by the Football Club, so should not have had ANY votes for them (as their position at the club is assumed).

Yet despite that many How To Vote cards had them as recommend in voteable positions (which assuming it's formal) would have just wasted preferences. I bet the informal vote topped all of them.
 

Oatley Dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Gilded
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
4,062
Reaction score
2,702
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the top 4 voted were endorsed by the Football Club, so should not have had ANY votes for them (as their position at the club is assumed).

Yet despite that many How To Vote cards had them as recommend in voteable positions (which assuming it's formal) would have just wasted preferences. I bet the informal vote topped all of them.
I must admit that confounded me when I voted. There was no mention of preference voting so effectively voting for those who are already appointed is just wasting a vote. I think that had there been only 3 votes allowed instead of 7 and the 4 Footy Club appointees not appear on the ticket there would have been a different result.
 

Spoonman84

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
17,736
Reaction score
31,795
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the top 4 voted were endorsed by the Football Club, so should not have had ANY votes for them (as their position at the club is assumed).

Yet despite that many How To Vote cards had them as recommend in voteable positions (which assuming it's formal) would have just wasted preferences. I bet the informal vote topped all of them.
I think its a legal thing where even though they are appointed they still need to be voted onto the board if that makes sense.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
24,741
Reaction score
27,950
There was nothing subversive about the appointments.Forget about anything else if Iemma and Kanaan were available for appointment to the Board the club would be crazy not to invite them on. One is a political powerbroker, the other the CEO of a huge finance organisation - happy days. That they may have more of an alliance with the existing chairman than potentially with others is an issue, but not a major one. Neither of these blokes are going to damage their reputation by making decisions that will bring either the leagues or footy club down - not for a few grand a year. And just for the record my golf club has had to go through exactly the same thing - reducing its board from 12 to 7 to comply with the legislation and we have the capacity to appoint 2 expert practitioners to those 7 to improve governance and decision-making. I just wish we had blokes of these two's calibre volunteering to do it.

One final thought. Everyone seems pretty sure that Peponis won't be re-elected chair because Coorey is aligned to Anderson. When I was there voting last week the two Coorey brothers and Peponis were having coffee together in the coffee shop. No matter who the chair is, the good news is that the club will continue to develop and the footy club will still be secure. Unlike Dragons, Tigers and Manly to name a few.
I hope you're correct in your assumptions. Everyone just wants all parties to work for the Dogs, not themselves.

I, and many others, feel it was the wrong thing to do and underhanded and 2 new unelected directors would not be sitting on our Board now if Dib had been unopposed and won. That is subversive and a last minute stunt that members had little time to digest IMO.

The vast majority of the members and fans wanted change. The new board got an unpreceded landslide endorsement. Only our greatest player in Turvey was returned.

Chairman Peponis was wrong to be so biased and denigrate the character of the Reform Ticket and then try and rig the will of the members who want change.

I am just trying to represent the feelings of the majority of Dogs fans who think this has all been so unnecessary and should not have happened.

We all hope the club can get over it and move on.
 

Mr Invisible

Banned
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
0
Reaction score
47
I think its a legal thing where even though they are appointed they still need to be voted onto the board if that makes sense.
It's probably something along the lines that all directors sitting on the board that wish to stand can be voted for (endorsed or otherwise).

Which brings with it another question: Why wouldn't the FC wait until the election to endorse directors, and can those endorsements change at any time (or does it rely on the director standing down). Why not wait to see who gets voted on and go from there.

It'd be nice if the constitutions for both boards were clearly accessible on both websites.

Yep. I am happy to see him go. Sick of power plays and own hidden agendas
The financial reports show nothing out of the ordinary (agendas).

At the end of the day, a board should be seen but not heard.

How many other FC and LC boards do you heard about? I mean in fairness ours had to get involved towards the end there, but most just go about things and are rarely heard of.
 

Trafford10

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
5,240
Yep. I am happy to see him go. Sick of power plays and own hidden agendas
See there it is.

There is something very wrong in the state of Denmark when you want to have a guy who has been involved with the club for 4 decades, hasn't really put a foot wrong run out of the club.

But apparently have no problem with the appointment of James "Gabby" Marroun. Nothing to see here I guess.
 

Oatley Dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Gilded
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
4,062
Reaction score
2,702
I hope you're correct in your assumptions. Everyone just wants all parties to work for the Dogs, not themselves.

I, and many others, feel it was the wrong thing to do and underhanded and 2 new unelected directors would not be sitting on our Board now if Dib had been unopposed and won. That is subversive and a last minute stunt that members had little time to digest IMO.

The vast majority of the members and fans wanted change. The new board got an unpreceded landslide endorsement. Only our greatest player in Turvey was returned.

Chairman Peponis was wrong to be so biased and denigrate the character of the Reform Ticket and then try and rig the will of the members who want change.

I am just trying to represent the feelings of the majority of Dogs fans who think this has all been so unnecessary and should not have happened.

We all hope the club can get over it and move on.
I get the need for change of the Footy Club and I am happy that we have it but the Leagues club is a different beast and needs to be run by people with a different skill set. I agree Peponis should have stayed out of it. It wasn't his role to comment and should have been censured for it but I would hate to see the club go backwards because favours have been repaid and old alliances reactivated. One sure way the footy club can get its grant cut is if the leagues club doesn't make a profit, which it has done for many years now.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
24,741
Reaction score
27,950
It's probably something along the lines that all directors sitting on the board that wish to stand can be voted for (endorsed or otherwise).

Which brings with it another question: Why wouldn't the FC wait until the election to endorse directors, and can those endorsements change at any time (or does it rely on the director standing down). Why not wait to see who gets voted on and go from there.

It'd be nice if the constitutions for both boards were clearly accessible on both websites.


The financial reports show nothing out of the ordinary (agendas).

At the end of the day, a board should be seen but not heard.

How many other FC and LC boards do you heard about? I mean in fairness ours had to get involved towards the end there, but most just go about things and are rarely heard of.
Mr I we wouldnt be hearing about our FC or LC if the FC had of been run successfully by Dib's Board and therefore voted out and we also could have just got on with voting for the LC committee if Dr G had of accepted the will of the members.

All the drama and publicity has been generated because of Peponis firstly going public bagging Anderson etc and then sneakily placing in two new directors to try and keep his Chairmanship. George has had control of the whole sorry public mess. Its about time they all got on with what the members voted for...whether it was right or wrong it is what it is and the losers should just accept it.
 

Mr Invisible

Banned
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
0
Reaction score
47
Mr I we wouldnt be hearing about our FC or LC if the FC had of been run successfully by Dib's Board and therefore voted out and we also could have just got on with voting for the LC committee if Dr G had of accepted the will of the members.

All the drama and publicity has been generated because of Peponis firstly going public bagging Anderson etc and then sneakily placing in two new directors to try and keep his Chairmanship. George has had control of the whole sorry public mess. Its about time they all got on with what the members voted for...whether it was right or wrong it is what it is and the losers should just accept it.
The previous LC members have worked with many other FC board members in the past without problems.

None of them have ever jumped up and down nor expressed concern over the desperate requirement to have control of the LC.

The LC always set aside a grant in their financial report, and that is locked in regardless for that financial year as a commitment.

All the while Iemma and Kanaan remain on the board, things will remain "okay" because there is accountability in place. If they are outed somehow, I think there will be attempts to force other directors to resign until the entire makeup is what some desire.
 

albatross

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
2,207
Reaction score
2,563
The members have voted and sanity has prevailed. Peponis would've been a divisive chairman even if he is a decent bloke and a club legend. He made his allegiances clear, which he has a right to, but he can't be chairman now. But he's on the board and the FC should just wear it and respect the vote.

I don't know why the FC would want Iemma and Kanaan to go. They should bring something to the board and we all want the leagues club to be the best it can be.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
24,741
Reaction score
27,950
The previous LC members have worked with many other FC board members in the past without problems.

None of them have ever jumped up and down nor expressed concern over the desperate requirement to have control of the LC.

The LC always set aside a grant in their financial report, and that is locked in regardless for that financial year as a commitment.

All the while Iemma and Kanaan remain on the board, things will remain "okay" because there is accountability in place. If they are outed somehow, I think there will be attempts to force other directors to resign until the entire makeup is what some desire.
Yes but you can hardly blame the reform ticket for being very very wary with Peponis now and not wanting to lose control and therefore have their agenda stuffed around. He has gone all tired and emotional and brought discredit to our democratic elections. This is unchartered territory George has got our FC into now and he has been totally ruthless in his tactics...just as he was in wresting control of the NSWRL I might add.

George in all good conscious should not have cast slurs on the reformers. It was a free and open election. Any in coming board would feel the same sense of betrayal and hijinx as these people obviously do towards George. Think back to the past few years...people were begging for an alternative ticket to stand do that the members and fans could feel there was some hope to being competitive, let alone our glory days.




The two parties are not on the same page and it has been exacerbated by George over reaching in his professional duties as an independent and conciliatory Chairman..lets hope it can end well.

After all the shenanigans and treachery you would have to doubt that tho until one faction or the other has total control...and it should not have degenerated to that.

Anyway there are two sides in this. We've all seen officials and players come and go, we've seen the club dragged down to the depths of despair and scandal and experienced the highs and premierships and we have endured and risen above it...we can do it again :grinning:
 

Mr Invisible

Banned
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
0
Reaction score
47
Who knows what the future brings. I think the smartest thing for all involved moving forwards is:
1. Keep Iemma and Kanaan appointed.
2. Appoint either Mortimer or Peponis as chairman (remember that makes little difference to majority but the chairman speaks on behalf of board). If not one of them then Iemma. No use electing chair to an FC endorsed person incase they get nuked in the future.
3. Everyone sort their shit out in the first meeting and get it all out. After the end of first meeting all personal agendas and warring are left at the door with a very clear understanding any dodgy shit and that director stands down.

Maybe, just maybe then, can they move on from all this.

and there needs to be a clear line in the sand:
FC - you look after your own shit in the club. If you want to interact with LC, it is done only through the 4 endorsed directors.

I feel this will keep everything settled. If the FC keep trying to butt in on LC and tell them what to do, things could get messy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top