Shark
Grey Nurse
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 9
Well it's true, you've obviously read the election thread in that closed forum. Sure DI has plenty of support but there's notable opposition.
Official Cronulla Sharks Board + Management
- Thread starter Google News
- Start date
Well it's true, you've obviously read the election thread in that closed forum. Sure DI has plenty of support but there's notable opposition.
PMQ_Tony
Tiger Shark
Peter-Cobb
Mako Shark
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2013
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
Great to see the blog bubbling along. I am not going to go through each point raised as it does the forum no favours. I stand steadfast behind what I said and I appreciate the feedback (even if it is against me). Far more important matters to discuss including what direction is this board election taking. Fitz, I read your post "I've heard that they even pulled out the heavy handed lawyers to try force the Cronulla-Caringbah President to ratify back-dated memberships for some of the ticket so they could be eligible for nomination to the Sharks Board."
That is a big call and, if true, a horrible depiction of what may lay ahead. I am still searching for an answer as to why Keogh / Gow are pursuing these elections with such vigour. I don't know what Keogh's background is in so far as following rugby league or living in Sydney, but he seems keen to get on our Board. I keep asking why? You guys who know the inside should be able to help.
Also I have been approached by many people who believe the NRL appointing Cullen to the CEO position is merely a way of having the cattle fattened before sale. That is, the Sharks can be turned into one neat package with all loose ends tied up, and moved to perth or wherever. The recent appointment of Noyce is believed to confirm the rumour. He was sacked by the Chooks last year and now we pick him up. We have the best playing roster ever, and there are plenty of other options.
I also think the elections should proceed on time. From all reports the players are bearing a lot of weight at the moment and uncertainty is not good. Hope all have been well and we really need a win this weekend.
That is a big call and, if true, a horrible depiction of what may lay ahead. I am still searching for an answer as to why Keogh / Gow are pursuing these elections with such vigour. I don't know what Keogh's background is in so far as following rugby league or living in Sydney, but he seems keen to get on our Board. I keep asking why? You guys who know the inside should be able to help.
Also I have been approached by many people who believe the NRL appointing Cullen to the CEO position is merely a way of having the cattle fattened before sale. That is, the Sharks can be turned into one neat package with all loose ends tied up, and moved to perth or wherever. The recent appointment of Noyce is believed to confirm the rumour. He was sacked by the Chooks last year and now we pick him up. We have the best playing roster ever, and there are plenty of other options.
I also think the elections should proceed on time. From all reports the players are bearing a lot of weight at the moment and uncertainty is not good. Hope all have been well and we really need a win this weekend.
Matty C of the Shire
Great White
I have Flicked back through the pages of this thread, and I can see two sides of one coin.
Both want whats best for the club.
In business, everyone will have their own motives, but at this stage we aren't sure what they are. The only information is from speculation and media, however it seems to be one sided. I would love to hear from all nominees and have us the supporters ask the questions, so everything can be out in broad day light.
At least we have Mr Peter Cobbs, coming onto the the sharks forever and league united forums, and talk to the supporters, the fans to question him. I do hope it is Peter who is commenting and that whether you are elected or not, you keep posting here.
However one question that is raised for myself is why is the unity team put their hands up now, rather than the period of 2010-2012.
All I can say is at least we all have two things in common and they are:
We support the Cronulla Sutherland Sharks, and
We want the best for the club, team and players.
Both want whats best for the club.
In business, everyone will have their own motives, but at this stage we aren't sure what they are. The only information is from speculation and media, however it seems to be one sided. I would love to hear from all nominees and have us the supporters ask the questions, so everything can be out in broad day light.
At least we have Mr Peter Cobbs, coming onto the the sharks forever and league united forums, and talk to the supporters, the fans to question him. I do hope it is Peter who is commenting and that whether you are elected or not, you keep posting here.
However one question that is raised for myself is why is the unity team put their hands up now, rather than the period of 2010-2012.
All I can say is at least we all have two things in common and they are:
We support the Cronulla Sutherland Sharks, and
We want the best for the club, team and players.
Gow's Scissors
Great White
Wow... that last post Peter just blows me away.
Peter-Cobb
Mako Shark
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2013
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
"tips" do you mind explaining why? I have no problem not receiving your vote, but up until today I don't see any other nominees on this site or others. They don't have to. I am simply pointing out where this "big picture" continually mentioned on here is headed. And if you can offer an explanation as to why we have a NRL appointed Cullen here when I keep getting told on this forum that the current Board have done such a great job, please explain that.
Peter,
That is not true.
As I've said many times before, please contact Craig Douglas.
Peter-Cobb
Mako Shark
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2013
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
I have confirmed with the GM Jeff Morris and to vote one must attend the Club. No postal, not absentee, no proxy. I fail to see how that is representative of the members of the Sharks. A person can vote in the Federal or State elections by post, yet not for the Sharks. Unbelievable. At the conclusion of the election it will be interesting to see how many actual votes were cast. It must make the interstate and overseas members feel unimportant. For those who are sick, travelling or unable to get to the Club I find it an insult.
Yes Peter.
I just noticed that, pretty poor effort.
And what about those members who don't live close by and who are still pasionate about the future of their club.
Even funnier that they will be sent one of these "who to vote for flyers",
Who's decision was that..................?
SF
Mako Shark
This has always been a rule, I'm guessing in the constitution. Perhaps one of those parts of the constitution that may have been being looked at for revision (I don't know that).
In the end there do need to be safeguards though to keep it a local club, e.g. if 5000 people from Perth decided they wanted a football club, and took over the board. Again I assume there are safeguards in the rules surrounding clubs that can safeguard against that.... but still there does need to be some checks and balances.
Peter, as you requested;
You put yourself forward to engage with members, well done, but I asked twice on this forum for you to answer relevant questions and you came back with "I am not going to go through each point raised as it does the forum no favours".
You then went on to make statements about relocation based purely on media reports that contain incorrect information, for which you have clearly not bothered to check the facts. (surprising for a solicitor)
What you said in my opinion was hysterical and contained a clear absence of any facts. I was literally gobsmacked by your comments..
I simply cannot vote for you as what you said indicates to me that you are not qualified and I am not willing to allow you to risk the future of our club.
I have kids who absolutely love the sharks, it is one way that we and other people bond together (as I am sure you did with your father and friends) This is far too important to allow you to spread rumours to attempt to get on the board.
sorry Peter, but you did ask.
You put yourself forward to engage with members, well done, but I asked twice on this forum for you to answer relevant questions and you came back with "I am not going to go through each point raised as it does the forum no favours".
You then went on to make statements about relocation based purely on media reports that contain incorrect information, for which you have clearly not bothered to check the facts. (surprising for a solicitor)
What you said in my opinion was hysterical and contained a clear absence of any facts. I was literally gobsmacked by your comments..
I simply cannot vote for you as what you said indicates to me that you are not qualified and I am not willing to allow you to risk the future of our club.
I have kids who absolutely love the sharks, it is one way that we and other people bond together (as I am sure you did with your father and friends) This is far too important to allow you to spread rumours to attempt to get on the board.
sorry Peter, but you did ask.
slide rule
Jaws
It's been like that forever, so I can’t really see it changing people much. It's not like they were able to do it before and it's been taken away.
Most people don't pay attention to this kind of thing anyway, really.
I'd say most eligible voters would probably be Leagues Club members rather than Football Club members anyway. Most of which would probably live locally i'd imagine.
The postal voting issue is something that comes up at every election.
The Club's constitution doesn't allow for it and is something that has its origins in the old Registered Clubs Act.
At the last AGM held on the 28th of August, 2012 Craig Douglas tabled constitutional reform as a priority.
Craig and a working committee have been working hard on developing a draft club constitution.
Unfortunately, the pressing ASADA issues have stalled work on that.
As the Clubs business focus changes with the Woolooware Bay Development, it will need to have a constitution that is reflective and appropriate to its new business streams.
The Club's constitution doesn't allow for it and is something that has its origins in the old Registered Clubs Act.
At the last AGM held on the 28th of August, 2012 Craig Douglas tabled constitutional reform as a priority.
Craig and a working committee have been working hard on developing a draft club constitution.
Unfortunately, the pressing ASADA issues have stalled work on that.
As the Clubs business focus changes with the Woolooware Bay Development, it will need to have a constitution that is reflective and appropriate to its new business streams.