vidmar link said:
Without wishing to provoke an elongated statement (!) ... could you clarify your comment above?
News: Lowe to land CEO job
- Thread starter ManlyBacker
- Start date
Without wishing to provoke an elongated statement (!) ... could you clarify your comment above?
SeaEagleRock8 link said:
Without wishing to provoke an elongated statement (!) ... could you clarify your comment above?
[/quote]
Never mind I'll answer it – of course in no way can it be said of the board that it is “their clubâ€Â. I expect that comment was simply the forum version of a slip of the tongue?
Obviously the Sea Eagles board is vested with responsibility for making these sort of decisions, and I am sure they will make the best decision they can. It may or may not prove to be the right decision.
But as far as I am concerned the board members are in the position of guardians of the heritage of the Sea Eagles on behalf of all of us. As are the legal owners, including the private majority shareholders. The mighty Sea Eagles are the spiritual property of anyone who played for the club, or worked for them, or anyone who felt joy and satisfaction at their achievements over all the decades the club existed. No??
Even legally of course the board doesn’t own the club, on the contrary the board has a duty to the club. The ownership structure is also quite clear and specific, though certainly not static.
Excuse my own elongated comment but I thought, coming as it did from a board member of the Football Club, which in turn appoints 2 members to the Sea Eagles board, it was a slip worthy of correction.
ManlyBacker
Winging it
From tomorrow's Manly Daily:
"Meanwhile, Graham Lowe was last night set to be ratified as Manly’s next CEO at a Sea Eagles board meeting.
The Auckland-based former Manly coach is tipped to start in his new gig in January. There was some speculation the final formal announcement would be delayed until next month’s meeting, but it remains clear Lowe will be Manly’s next boss.
“He will be ratified,†a Manly source within the club said before the meeting. "
"Meanwhile, Graham Lowe was last night set to be ratified as Manly’s next CEO at a Sea Eagles board meeting.
The Auckland-based former Manly coach is tipped to start in his new gig in January. There was some speculation the final formal announcement would be delayed until next month’s meeting, but it remains clear Lowe will be Manly’s next boss.
“He will be ratified,†a Manly source within the club said before the meeting. "
Ryan
Journey Man
As they closed their Thesaurus and announce, "me makum biiig word (ratified) to paper. They thunk we must be reeeeal smart nows I tells ya. Our job now safe we fink. Ol Gray, gray look reeeeal pretty in purple n white. Our colours are purple aint they just? Can use guys ratify me of dat?"
Â
Â
Jatz Crackers
First Grader
vidmar link said:
Pretty funny stuff right there.
vidmar
Bencher
Hi SER8,
Sorry for the delay in getting back...been a mad day with one thing and another...
We have of course swapped emails and texts and I know you are genuine in your concern and don’t see your post as vexatious so happy to reply and share with others.
Contrary to your summation, my post and reference to “their club†wasn’t a slip of the tongue.
I’m mindful of not upsetting Jatz Crackers (love youse mate!) by using too many words on a response so you can move on now as this may take a while?
The reality is that the club we support is a majority owned private business rather than a “Football Club†as was the case for many years that was “owned†by members.
As such, the longer term strategy, the day to day running and game day operations are all under the primary control and management of the Sea Eagles Ltd and as a result they reap any financial rewards or suffer any losses.
The role of the CEO is to run that business competently and with the major charter that they hopefully sign off each accounting period in the black.
As such, the 2 majority private owners will be concerned that the person they appoint in that role will have the skills, ability and capacity to do so (and in our clubs case, be able to work and manage and work with the 3 entities that hold shares).
Running an NRL club is a far different occupation to running a “normal†company – for instance there will always be circumstances of dilemma where what is the best for the business is not best for the customer (supporter) – case in point playing 2 games away from Brookvale at Gosford – the customers (season ticket holders and those who may choose to go through the gate) don’t like it in many cases but the financial returns on those games dictates that as a business it makes perfect sense.
I’ve seen people post that any business plan MUST include premierships (something as fans we all crave) and there is some sound business sense in that happening with the anticipated revenue from sponsorship, merchandise and increased support etc. and as such it would seem to make sense.
So to achieve that we sign anyone half decent and keep tried and tested players (of course always being mindful of the salary cap)...whilst all the while keeping an eye on emerging talent so that you have a feeder system in place to avoid the highs and lows of re-building when you invariably lose people.
The forums are full of “we must sign....â€Âor “why did we re-sign blah de blah†and even “How come we lost Billy Blogâ€Â
As fans it is of course (!) a no brainer - but this costs money and if that financial investment doesn’t return a premiership and leaves the club in financial crisis then from a business perspective it will be seen (quite rightly) as a disaster and the credibility of those who “splashed the cash†will be questioned? (And as supporters we are well clear of such recriminations?)
The most (financially) successful club in the NRL are the Brisbane Broncos...On average they have the largest crowds (approx. twice what we get at Brookie) and they invariably turn a profit far and above other clubs but when was the last time they were Premiers?
Compare with Melbourne who lose a reported $4- $5+ million per year and get around 11,500 at the gate and hopefully you get my drift?
What we as fans see as being the best for the club doesn’t often make â€Âbusiness sense†and there is the dilemma that “owners†face.
So to my point....What we as supporters see as a “must do†for “Our club†(and often) is not the best path for the owners who are protecting their investment and doing what they should to ensure the longevity of the business (Their club)
Your point in raisng my role as a board member of the Football Club is valid and I see that as a proud supporter I am aware of the above and hopefully balance that (or support those who do) with the protection of the heritage and history of the club (ie name, where we play and in what colours -which is covered by the constitutional preference vote that the Football Club holds) but also promote the importance of a strong entity that allows supporters a say and allows some influence to protect the rank and file fan and their wishes alongside the wants and needs of the business drivers that are and must be followed by the private owners.
Hence the need (and importance) for the aforementioned 2 seats allocated to the Football Club as minority shareholders of the “the businessâ€Â
I will be eternally indebted to the Penn and Delmege families for saving the club and the team I support but am continually bewildered at the apathy (and in some cases outright vitriol) of those who claim to have a passion for the team and are invariably outspoken on the direction taken and decisions made and who think a post on a forum will have more effect than putting their hand in their pocket and contributing to the financial well being of their club (Sea Eagles membership) plus having the benefit of their voice really being heard (Football Club membership)
So (Jatz this is for you) – the club is “their Club†and will remain so unless and until we as supporters get off our rear ends and relinquish membership of the “News Limited stay at home Supportahs†group or use hands to put them in pockets instead of on keyboards and make a commitment to change things.
Vidmar
Sorry for the delay in getting back...been a mad day with one thing and another...
We have of course swapped emails and texts and I know you are genuine in your concern and don’t see your post as vexatious so happy to reply and share with others.
Contrary to your summation, my post and reference to “their club†wasn’t a slip of the tongue.
I’m mindful of not upsetting Jatz Crackers (love youse mate!) by using too many words on a response so you can move on now as this may take a while?
The reality is that the club we support is a majority owned private business rather than a “Football Club†as was the case for many years that was “owned†by members.
As such, the longer term strategy, the day to day running and game day operations are all under the primary control and management of the Sea Eagles Ltd and as a result they reap any financial rewards or suffer any losses.
The role of the CEO is to run that business competently and with the major charter that they hopefully sign off each accounting period in the black.
As such, the 2 majority private owners will be concerned that the person they appoint in that role will have the skills, ability and capacity to do so (and in our clubs case, be able to work and manage and work with the 3 entities that hold shares).
Running an NRL club is a far different occupation to running a “normal†company – for instance there will always be circumstances of dilemma where what is the best for the business is not best for the customer (supporter) – case in point playing 2 games away from Brookvale at Gosford – the customers (season ticket holders and those who may choose to go through the gate) don’t like it in many cases but the financial returns on those games dictates that as a business it makes perfect sense.
I’ve seen people post that any business plan MUST include premierships (something as fans we all crave) and there is some sound business sense in that happening with the anticipated revenue from sponsorship, merchandise and increased support etc. and as such it would seem to make sense.
So to achieve that we sign anyone half decent and keep tried and tested players (of course always being mindful of the salary cap)...whilst all the while keeping an eye on emerging talent so that you have a feeder system in place to avoid the highs and lows of re-building when you invariably lose people.
The forums are full of “we must sign....â€Âor “why did we re-sign blah de blah†and even “How come we lost Billy Blogâ€Â
As fans it is of course (!) a no brainer - but this costs money and if that financial investment doesn’t return a premiership and leaves the club in financial crisis then from a business perspective it will be seen (quite rightly) as a disaster and the credibility of those who “splashed the cash†will be questioned? (And as supporters we are well clear of such recriminations?)
The most (financially) successful club in the NRL are the Brisbane Broncos...On average they have the largest crowds (approx. twice what we get at Brookie) and they invariably turn a profit far and above other clubs but when was the last time they were Premiers?
Compare with Melbourne who lose a reported $4- $5+ million per year and get around 11,500 at the gate and hopefully you get my drift?
What we as fans see as being the best for the club doesn’t often make â€Âbusiness sense†and there is the dilemma that “owners†face.
So to my point....What we as supporters see as a “must do†for “Our club†(and often) is not the best path for the owners who are protecting their investment and doing what they should to ensure the longevity of the business (Their club)
Your point in raisng my role as a board member of the Football Club is valid and I see that as a proud supporter I am aware of the above and hopefully balance that (or support those who do) with the protection of the heritage and history of the club (ie name, where we play and in what colours -which is covered by the constitutional preference vote that the Football Club holds) but also promote the importance of a strong entity that allows supporters a say and allows some influence to protect the rank and file fan and their wishes alongside the wants and needs of the business drivers that are and must be followed by the private owners.
Hence the need (and importance) for the aforementioned 2 seats allocated to the Football Club as minority shareholders of the “the businessâ€Â
I will be eternally indebted to the Penn and Delmege families for saving the club and the team I support but am continually bewildered at the apathy (and in some cases outright vitriol) of those who claim to have a passion for the team and are invariably outspoken on the direction taken and decisions made and who think a post on a forum will have more effect than putting their hand in their pocket and contributing to the financial well being of their club (Sea Eagles membership) plus having the benefit of their voice really being heard (Football Club membership)
So (Jatz this is for you) – the club is “their Club†and will remain so unless and until we as supporters get off our rear ends and relinquish membership of the “News Limited stay at home Supportahs†group or use hands to put them in pockets instead of on keyboards and make a commitment to change things.
Vidmar
Ryan
Journey Man
Vid - I am a member of the "club", and also a season ticket holder, and to be fair, your statement above applies as much to me as it does to Jatz. You have (in a nice way) clearly stated that this club is Penn's, Delmege's, and your board's, and that decisions made, will be made "like it or lump it" from a paying fans perspective.
Flip it around then.
How would Delmege / Penn / The board feel if all but a very rare few customers who are expected to "like it, or lump it", just decide to stop cold turkey in monetarily supporting yours and THEIR club?
+ You demand, or suggest in a nicer way that those who can be a football club member, be a member, as it is a means to be a voice to be heard;
+ Aaron and co. want us to be Screaming Eagles members;
+ The club want us to fork out big $$$ on merchandise;
+ The club encourages us to pay larger sums to travel to away games;
+ The club want us to pay higher prices for viewing a product in a degrading arena;
+ The club wants us to be involved in mail outs, ground support, heck, throw in petitions etc;
yet at the same time:-
+ You tell us what we can / can't / should / should not say on a website;
+ Tell us games are being taken away from Brookie as a business decision;
+ Tell us that this is "their" club, NOT ours (refer above) - and don't you dare suggest that anyone (including me) who has season tickets, memberships etc are ANY better than a fan like Jatz - how elitist;
+ Your board, and "their club's" owners Penn / Delmege fleshes out it's dirty laundry in the media (I'll have you know - "I" copped plenty for that - as I'm sure most other Manly fans did - almost everyday, because I am affiliated with this team as a supporter);
Then you tell us we have to have faith in the board, as it speaks for the fans, and you are looking to improve. Ok, that's great. If it's not, I guess it's too bad. I can't voice that opinion, or if I do, I will get ostrocised for the privellege (go for your life on those two Fro !). Â
I found it very interesting that the board went to a vote about Grant Mayer's tenure without fair and equitable feedback from at least 70% of their existing members. That's not membership. REGARDLESS of how they voted Vid.
The board are voting in Graham Lowe (and I'll support him) - if not, I'd probably get cast out as a fan. I wonder, how much discussion have the board had with it's members to attain feedback - so they can make a balanced vote?
The concept of membership is a joke, if NIL feedback is sought from those funding that membership for critical decision making. NIL Vidmar.
Your opinion is that those who don't fork out $$$, are worthless as a fan. You basically said it above, and I've read it a number of times before. You then directed Jatz above to the fact that the owbers run this club like a business.
Here's a tip. Pull 85% of any clubs or business's goodwill out of the balance sheet, and what do you have? An entity that is insolvent. Goodwill equates to non paying fans, who should also have a voice and a say in the operation of the club.
I honestly think you guys don't get it. Without fans, not one football club would be viable. I'm not arguing on Jatz behalf here (he'd probably get insulted if I did), and just saying you should open your minds a little bit. There's more to the world than you few blokes on the board, Scott and Max.
It's 2.03am in the morning and I can't sleep, so I hope that didn't sound harsh, and I hope it made sense....LoL
Flip it around then.
How would Delmege / Penn / The board feel if all but a very rare few customers who are expected to "like it, or lump it", just decide to stop cold turkey in monetarily supporting yours and THEIR club?
+ You demand, or suggest in a nicer way that those who can be a football club member, be a member, as it is a means to be a voice to be heard;
+ Aaron and co. want us to be Screaming Eagles members;
+ The club want us to fork out big $$$ on merchandise;
+ The club encourages us to pay larger sums to travel to away games;
+ The club want us to pay higher prices for viewing a product in a degrading arena;
+ The club wants us to be involved in mail outs, ground support, heck, throw in petitions etc;
yet at the same time:-
+ You tell us what we can / can't / should / should not say on a website;
+ Tell us games are being taken away from Brookie as a business decision;
+ Tell us that this is "their" club, NOT ours (refer above) - and don't you dare suggest that anyone (including me) who has season tickets, memberships etc are ANY better than a fan like Jatz - how elitist;
+ Your board, and "their club's" owners Penn / Delmege fleshes out it's dirty laundry in the media (I'll have you know - "I" copped plenty for that - as I'm sure most other Manly fans did - almost everyday, because I am affiliated with this team as a supporter);
Then you tell us we have to have faith in the board, as it speaks for the fans, and you are looking to improve. Ok, that's great. If it's not, I guess it's too bad. I can't voice that opinion, or if I do, I will get ostrocised for the privellege (go for your life on those two Fro !). Â
I found it very interesting that the board went to a vote about Grant Mayer's tenure without fair and equitable feedback from at least 70% of their existing members. That's not membership. REGARDLESS of how they voted Vid.
The board are voting in Graham Lowe (and I'll support him) - if not, I'd probably get cast out as a fan. I wonder, how much discussion have the board had with it's members to attain feedback - so they can make a balanced vote?
The concept of membership is a joke, if NIL feedback is sought from those funding that membership for critical decision making. NIL Vidmar.
Your opinion is that those who don't fork out $$$, are worthless as a fan. You basically said it above, and I've read it a number of times before. You then directed Jatz above to the fact that the owbers run this club like a business.
Here's a tip. Pull 85% of any clubs or business's goodwill out of the balance sheet, and what do you have? An entity that is insolvent. Goodwill equates to non paying fans, who should also have a voice and a say in the operation of the club.
I honestly think you guys don't get it. Without fans, not one football club would be viable. I'm not arguing on Jatz behalf here (he'd probably get insulted if I did), and just saying you should open your minds a little bit. There's more to the world than you few blokes on the board, Scott and Max.
It's 2.03am in the morning and I can't sleep, so I hope that didn't sound harsh, and I hope it made sense....LoL
Tbh I am not too fussed who the CEO is, more important things to worry about that who my footy teams CEO is. Whilst I think Lowe is a strange choice as he seems to have little business experience, however I also know little about him. I might as well give him a chance to prove himself, the only choice I have.Â
vidmar
Bencher
G’day Clon, yes I know the Broncos were Premiers in 2006 but they then finished 8th (How many have used our position this season to be critical of the club) and haven’t made a final for the subsequent 2 years – My point was that if bringing in a Premiership every year or couple of years is a measure of success then they would be seen as a disappointment?
Thanks Ryan and as always some valid points and put forward with best intentions.
That said, you may have missed the point(s) that I was making - the club is a business now and very few businesses go to their customer base to get them involved in making business decisions.
I’m sure that the NAB masters would be on the phone to you pretty quickly if you started turning down lucrative deals just to keep me happy? (I have 6 NAB accounts)
The business is owned by a majority by the private owners
As a keen reader of my posts you may remember that I have a number of times referenced the importance of BOTH memberships – without Sea Eagles members we will lack financial input from supporters to contribute to having a team on the paddock and the support staff to keep it there.
Football Club membership is to build a strong MEMBER based group that will allow us as supporters to have a say and some input at Sea Eagles board level – We’ve communicated privately on this and you will already be aware of at least one issue affecting fans that was softened by the representation of the Football Club officials on the Sea Eagles board (season tickets?)
Am I critical of people who won’t contribute financially?
Absolutely – and make no apologies about it!
No cash – No club…Simple
Grant Mayer had a saying that he was happy for anyone to critisise him or his methods but only if they paid for the privilegeÂ
Sure, I fully fully appreciate that there are those that simply can’t afford it and this statement is not directed at those people (and quite rightly would be elitist and condescending if it were) but rather the apathetic ones who can afford it but choose not to, preferring to swell News Ltd’s coffers by watching games on their plasma screens and then bang on about how passionate they are about the club, that they should be listened to about the direction of the club or who are hypercritical about the players, the administrators and any and all aspect of the code from David Gallop down (and even News Limited’s control of the game!!!).
Now, in the past I’ve been accused of bullying or using guilt to promote increased membership – if people have that perspective then sorry – I’m just stating a fact – The club needs many more financial members to survive in the long term – end of!
For supporters to have more of a say in our club and the direction it takes then we need people to be a member
I’m happy to listen to anyone who can convince me that having a passion for the club and the desire for it to be successful equates to not contributing in some way financially.
You mention people “just stopping†membership? Fact of the matter is that people aren’t and ticketed membership are growing which to me points to the fact that many people are happy with the way most things are going (or at least are not too disenfranchised from the product) so you may be in a minority with that strategy.
Football Club memberships so far for 2010 are growing at a healthy rate and renewals are at around 70% already even though membership doesn’t end for 2009 until the end of December.
This tells me that the message is getting through and that people are taking steps to get their voice heard so I’ll keep banging on as something must be working?
I’m not saying everything is perfect but I am saying that things can improve and are but for that to continue then supporters need to get behind the club financially, establish lines of communication with the board and apathy is not the key, nor is a handful of people posting on a couple of sites voicing their displeasure.
There are 2 options here – do something about it if you’re not happy or sit back – you can’t do both so a choice has to be made but once made then you must be prepared to play with the hand that is dealt as a result
I’m happy to be an easy target my skin is thick but to be honest I get more people thanking me for getting involved, asking how they can help or what can they do than I do from people slagging me off for trying so I’m OK with that?
I see many passionate people doing what they can for the team and the club – am I wrong to support them and align myself with these people and join in or do I sit back and let them do the work and then criticize them for it when it is not done the way I would like it?
You can voice an opinion and frequently do – you’ll recall in a previous post that I suggest you do just that to the people who make the decisions?
Your retraction of a statement on MWSE recently after a discussion with Bob Reilly shows that you are open to constructive dialogue and willing to hold your hand up when wrong which is commendable and I respect you for it.
The more people get involved, the more people that commit to memberships to give them a voice the more it will send a message to the club and the owners that we do care and that we should have a voice.
You have seen that from your own experience that the exec are wiling to listen and communicate with members who have issues with things
At the moment, the majority private owners are the ones paying the fiddler so they quite rightly are calling the tune – don’t like it then help me get more people to make a counter offer?
Thanks Ryan and as always some valid points and put forward with best intentions.
That said, you may have missed the point(s) that I was making - the club is a business now and very few businesses go to their customer base to get them involved in making business decisions.
I’m sure that the NAB masters would be on the phone to you pretty quickly if you started turning down lucrative deals just to keep me happy? (I have 6 NAB accounts)
The business is owned by a majority by the private owners
As a keen reader of my posts you may remember that I have a number of times referenced the importance of BOTH memberships – without Sea Eagles members we will lack financial input from supporters to contribute to having a team on the paddock and the support staff to keep it there.
Football Club membership is to build a strong MEMBER based group that will allow us as supporters to have a say and some input at Sea Eagles board level – We’ve communicated privately on this and you will already be aware of at least one issue affecting fans that was softened by the representation of the Football Club officials on the Sea Eagles board (season tickets?)
Am I critical of people who won’t contribute financially?
Absolutely – and make no apologies about it!
No cash – No club…Simple
Grant Mayer had a saying that he was happy for anyone to critisise him or his methods but only if they paid for the privilegeÂ
Sure, I fully fully appreciate that there are those that simply can’t afford it and this statement is not directed at those people (and quite rightly would be elitist and condescending if it were) but rather the apathetic ones who can afford it but choose not to, preferring to swell News Ltd’s coffers by watching games on their plasma screens and then bang on about how passionate they are about the club, that they should be listened to about the direction of the club or who are hypercritical about the players, the administrators and any and all aspect of the code from David Gallop down (and even News Limited’s control of the game!!!).
Now, in the past I’ve been accused of bullying or using guilt to promote increased membership – if people have that perspective then sorry – I’m just stating a fact – The club needs many more financial members to survive in the long term – end of!
For supporters to have more of a say in our club and the direction it takes then we need people to be a member
I’m happy to listen to anyone who can convince me that having a passion for the club and the desire for it to be successful equates to not contributing in some way financially.
You mention people “just stopping†membership? Fact of the matter is that people aren’t and ticketed membership are growing which to me points to the fact that many people are happy with the way most things are going (or at least are not too disenfranchised from the product) so you may be in a minority with that strategy.
Football Club memberships so far for 2010 are growing at a healthy rate and renewals are at around 70% already even though membership doesn’t end for 2009 until the end of December.
This tells me that the message is getting through and that people are taking steps to get their voice heard so I’ll keep banging on as something must be working?
I’m not saying everything is perfect but I am saying that things can improve and are but for that to continue then supporters need to get behind the club financially, establish lines of communication with the board and apathy is not the key, nor is a handful of people posting on a couple of sites voicing their displeasure.
There are 2 options here – do something about it if you’re not happy or sit back – you can’t do both so a choice has to be made but once made then you must be prepared to play with the hand that is dealt as a result
I’m happy to be an easy target my skin is thick but to be honest I get more people thanking me for getting involved, asking how they can help or what can they do than I do from people slagging me off for trying so I’m OK with that?
I see many passionate people doing what they can for the team and the club – am I wrong to support them and align myself with these people and join in or do I sit back and let them do the work and then criticize them for it when it is not done the way I would like it?
You can voice an opinion and frequently do – you’ll recall in a previous post that I suggest you do just that to the people who make the decisions?
Your retraction of a statement on MWSE recently after a discussion with Bob Reilly shows that you are open to constructive dialogue and willing to hold your hand up when wrong which is commendable and I respect you for it.
The more people get involved, the more people that commit to memberships to give them a voice the more it will send a message to the club and the owners that we do care and that we should have a voice.
You have seen that from your own experience that the exec are wiling to listen and communicate with members who have issues with things
At the moment, the majority private owners are the ones paying the fiddler so they quite rightly are calling the tune – don’t like it then help me get more people to make a counter offer?
vidmar
Bencher
Matabele link said:
Matabele would recall that the Football Club are the "traditional" owners of the club
They receive no payment from the franchise
The FC has just purchased an additional 100,000 shares in the Sea Eagles
Does he suggest that the Football Club step down from the board (45)
Jatz Crackers
First Grader
vidmar link said:
Gday Vid,
In the earlier stages of my posting on this site, I believe I was guilty of taking some things said too seriously (my apologies Matabele) & it may be the case that you take some things I post in the same way. I am not having a go at you.
I can assure you that there is no apathy or vitriol in my postings, especially in response to yours, although I would point out that your “elongated statements†could be construed as coming across in a way similar to one of those dedicated religious types that like to fervently preach AT someone until they are converted.
People will express their opinions about the clubs operations & the teams performance, but in no way does that automatically indicate dissent or identify someone as a “non true supporterâ€Â. There seems to be an “us & them†flavour to some elements of the supporters which is a shame in my view.
I note you reference me & membership & “stay at home supportersâ€Â I am not currently a member and nor do I post over at MWSE. There are very real & specific reasons why that is the case. That doesn’t reflect on me as a supporter, but rather it is a poor indictment on a specific event caused by a select few with big mouths & egos. I will leave it at that.
So in an effort to keep things brief I must thank the chicken man for his words of wisdom on this topic.
 From where I'm sitting, yes.Matabele link said:
[/quote]
No way. I advocate for the opposite, ie the FC staunchly defends its right to 2 places on the Sea Eagles board, that is the basis on which the private 'salvation' took place. Moreover, to generate more involvement from more fans, we should scrap the 2 year (or whatever period it is) qualification on voting rights in ther FC. This was only recently introduced.
The FC is the only entity that offers fans the ability to have any say in the club. That oportunity to vote should be what the FC is using to rally membership. By restricting the right to vote, and saying only after being a member for x number of years do you you have a right to vote, the FC is restricitng its only legitimate argument for membership.
The club -private owners included - need fans to take more responsibilty, so why restrict their involvement in this way? The right to have a vote in (2/7ths of) the Sea Eagles is what should be used to atttract membership.
By the way the FC owns over 16% of Sea Eagles. Which is definitely not insignificant. [I can't check the exact percentage at present as I currently cannot access the MWSE site, which possibly is coincidental?]
ManlyBacker
Winging it
The current FC ownership is 17.62% and is 2,250,000 ordinary shares, with 100,000 added this year at a cost of $37,000.
The value of this years 'investment' in MW Sea Eagles Ltd of $37,000 has been written down to zero "because Sea Eagles Limited is running at a loss". I don't understand that and will be raising it with the Board members. I have seen chequing accounts that look more impressive than this year's Financial Statements.
The decision to restrict voting rights of FC new members was taken, I think, in FY 2008. It was done deliberately so that a huge influx of new members, say supporting one individual's intention to remove the FC's preference share controlling colours, playing ground and naming, could not occur. I wasn't a member when this vote was taken but I understand why it was done and support it.
The value of this years 'investment' in MW Sea Eagles Ltd of $37,000 has been written down to zero "because Sea Eagles Limited is running at a loss". I don't understand that and will be raising it with the Board members. I have seen chequing accounts that look more impressive than this year's Financial Statements.
The decision to restrict voting rights of FC new members was taken, I think, in FY 2008. It was done deliberately so that a huge influx of new members, say supporting one individual's intention to remove the FC's preference share controlling colours, playing ground and naming, could not occur. I wasn't a member when this vote was taken but I understand why it was done and support it.
Canteen Worker
First Grader
The two year membership restriction would seem to be to stop some group doing a 'lightning' stack and moving in to wrest control of the FC and its agenda.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
